|
Project
Exam:
|
| Examination form |
Home assignment - written product |
| Individual or group exam |
Individual |
|
During this course students will be required to
hand in five mandatory assignments (e.g. attendance, papers,
exercises, presentations, productions), that need to be
completed/approved before being eligible to register for the
examination and i.e. being allowed to submit written work for
examination. Failure to hand in these mandatory assignments on time
will mean that the registration for examination is annulled. The
deadlines for these five mandatory assignments are posted
separately on the course portal. For the mandatory exercises
involving programming, students are required to use the Windows
Phone platform. |
| Size of written product |
Max. 20 pages |
| Assignment type |
Project |
| Duration |
Written product to be submitted on specified date
and time. |
| Grading scale |
7-step scale |
| Examiner(s) |
Internal examiner and second internal
examiner |
| Exam period |
May/June and May/June |
| Make-up exam/re-exam |
Same examination form as the ordinary exam
During this course students will be
required to hand in five mandatory assignments (e.g. attendance,
papers, exercises, presentations, productions), that need to be
completed/approved before being eligible to register for the
examination and i.e. being allowed to submit written work for
examination. Failure to hand in these mandatory assignments on time
will mean that the registration for examination is annulled. The
deadlines for these five mandatory assignments are posted
separately on the course portal. For the mandatory exercises
involving programming, students are required to use the Windows
Phone platform.
The productions for the course exam will consist of the design,
implementation, evaluation and demonstration of a mobile
application for one of these three mobile platforms: Windows Phone,
Apples iOS or Google Android. Although the course content will
focus on Windows Phone application design, implementation and
evaluation, students can develop for the Apple iOS and Google
Android mobile platforms for their course exam
productions.
|
Description of the exam
procedure
The productions for the course exam
will consist of the design, implementation, evaluation and
demonstration of a mobile application for one of these three mobile
platforms: Windows Phone, Apples iOS or Google Android. Although
the course content will focus on Windows Phone application design,
implementation and evaluation, students can develop for the Apple
iOS and Google Android mobile platforms for their course exam
productions.
|
|
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C.,
Meyer, A. D., & Coleman Jr, H. J. (1978). Organizational
strategy, structure, and process. Academy of management review,
546-562.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view:
Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive
advantage. Academy of management review, 660-679. |
Kozinets, R. V.,
Hemetsberger, A., & Schau, H. J. (2008). The wisdom of consumer
crowds. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(4), 339-354.
Vatrapu, R. (2012). Understanding Social Business. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Technology Management (ICTM) 2012,
18-20, July 2012(Bengaluru). |
Cohen, W. M., &
Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 128-152.
Porta, M., House, B., Buckley, L., & Blitz, A. (2008). Value
2.0: Eight new rules for creating and capturing value from
innovative technologies. Strategy & Leadership, 36(4),
10-18. |
Ackerman, M. (2000). The
intellectual challenge of CSCW: The gap between social requirements
and technical feasibility. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2),
179-203.
Grudin, J. (1988). Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the
design and evaluation of organizational interfaces. Proceedings of
the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work,
85-93. doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/62266.62273 |
Bødker, S., Ehn, P.,
Sjögren, D., & Sundblad, Y. (2000). Co-operative
Design—perspectives on 20 years with ‘the Scandinavian IT Design
Model’. 1-9.
Constantine, L. (2003). Canonical abstract prototypes for abstract
visual and interaction design. In J. Jorge, N. Nunes & J. F. e.
Cunha (Eds.), Proceedings of DSV - IS’2003 –10th International
Workshop on Design, Specification and Verification of Inter-active
Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp.
http://www.foruse.com/articles/abstract.pdf). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag. |
| Vatrapu, R. (2010).
Explaining culture: an outline of a theory of socio-technical
interactions. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Conference
on Intercultural Collaboration (ICIC 2010), 111-120. |
Windows 8 Metro Apps
Technical Documentation
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/br229516.aspx |
| Windows Phone 8 Technical
Documentation |
Hornbaek, K. (2010).
Dogmas in the assessment of usability evaluation methods. Behaviour
& Information Technology, 29(1), 97 - 111.
Hwang, W., & Salvendy, G. (2010). Number of people required
for usability evaluation: the 10±2 rule. Commun. ACM,
53(5), 130-133. doi: 10.1145/1735223.1735255 |
Greenberg, S., &
Buxton, B. (2008). Usability evaluation considered harmful (some of
the time). Paper presented at the Proceedings of the twenty-sixth
annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems,
Florence, Italy.
Vatrapu, R., & Suthers, D. (2010). Intra-and Inter-Cultural
Usability in Computer-Supported Collaboration. Journal of usability
Studies, 5(4), 172-197. |
| Selected Chapters from
Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka,
H., & Van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive
guide to methods and measures. London:
Oxford. |
|
Permalink