Task 11: HCI External Practice
Original timed rehearsal · unfamiliar resource + your studied interface
Plan before writing — 5 minutes
Three short principle-discrimination responses.
Your studied interface: two principles plus one evaluation.
Compare two unfamiliar interfaces and justify two improvements.
Repair one missing evidence → effect → purpose link.
Word guidance: the 2026 specification gives an 800–1200-word guidance. Treat this as guidance, not an 800-word minimum or an invitation to pad. Complete reasoning matters.
Section A — Short precision responses
1. Two features, two jobs
A progress indicator appears during a large upload. Beside it is a Cancel upload button. Identify the most precise usability principle for each feature and explain the different job it does.
2. Te reo Māori search
A public information site preserves tohutō, accepts kupu Māori in search and returns the intended te reo pages. Name the relevant principle family and explain the effect on a Māori-language user completing a search task.
3. Comments = whanaungatanga?
A social app allows comments. A reviewer says, “This demonstrates whanaungatanga.” Judge the claim as strongly evidenced, possible—more evidence needed, or better explained by ordinary HCI. Justify your judgement and name the missing context, if any.
Section B — Your studied interface
Interface: ____________________ Exact user task: ____________________
Purpose and named user:
4. Examine two principles
For each principle, use a specific feature you observed. Explain how the feature applies the principle, the effect on your named user completing the task, and the effect on interface purpose.
| Feature + evidence | Principle + how applied | Effect on user/task | Effect on purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
5. Evaluate one significant limitation or improvement
Make a supported judgement about significance or suitability. Propose one specific principle-grounded change and explain its predicted effect. Include a trade-off or limitation.
Section C — Unfamiliar resource: CityLink Events
User and task: Sam has low vision and uses a keyboard. Sam wants to find a free, wheelchair-accessible event this Saturday, save it, and be sure it was saved. Both mock-ups show the same service. These are original practice interfaces, not screenshots of a real product.
SATURDAY EVENTS · colour key: ● available ● full
10:00 · Community Hall · Free
18:00 · Pier 2 · $5
Filters: Saturday · Free · Wheelchair accessible
Saturday 10:00 · Community Hall
Free · Wheelchair accessible · Places available
Text size: A− A A+
6. Compare the same task
Compare how A and B support Sam to find a suitable event and confirm it is saved. Use like-for-like evidence from both interfaces, at least two usability principles, a judgement about which is more effective, and one trade-off.
7. Recommend two improvements
Propose two changes to either interface. Each change must be specific, not already present, linked to a principle, and causally connected to Sam’s task and the service’s purpose.
| Observed limitation | Specific change | Principle | Predicted user + purpose effect |
|---|---|---|---|
Five-minute self-check
Mark your own writing:
- Underline every piece of observable evidence.
- Box each named principle.
- Circle the named user and exact task.
- Draw an arrow to the user effect.
- Star the link to interface purpose.
- Put brackets around the like-for-like comparison.
□ Accurate purpose, features and principle use.
□ Mechanism explains the effect on a named user/task.
□ Supported judgement, comparison, significance/suitability or trade-off.
□ Specific, new, principle-based and causally justified.
The one causal link I repaired: