Embedded Files
Level 1
Human Computer Interaction
Human Computer Interaction
Human-computer interaction (HCI) is a field of study focusing on the design of computer technology and, in particular, the interaction between humans (the users) and computers. HCI covers almost all forms of information technology design.
Usability Heuristics
How easy is your interface/output to understand?
Usability Heuristics
How easy is your interface/output to understand?
Course prerequisites:
Open entry.
Assessment:
External exam will be held in Term 4.
For 2026, examples of usability principles will be drawn from:
Mātāpono Māori
Nielsen’s usability heuristics
Usability concepts such as internal and external consistency, and accessibility.
Candidates will study an interface of their own choice before the assessment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This unit will also have a practice exam during the Term 3 School Derived Grade Exams.
It is important that you pass the external if you're seeking a subject endorsement.
You should aim to write between 800 and 1500 words in total, in about 1.5hrs.
This standard involves the you applying knowledge of usability heuristics to analyse a chosen interface as it relates to it performing a particular task.
There is a video(s) of someone using an interface of a website which you will use to answer the questions. You will not be able to access the websites independently during the exam.
Additional instructions for exam
Additional instructions for exam
During the assessment session, please ensure that all work is directly entered into your computer or device. You are allowed to include screenshots from the provided resources by copying and pasting them. Note that physical copies, online course materials, or any form of notes should not be used for completing this assessment. Additionally, internet resources may not be accessed during the assessment, except for the CAT.
Upon completion of the assessment session, make sure to save your response. By doing so, you confirm that the work presented is entirely your own. It's important to note that NZQA may digitally sample your work to verify its authenticity.
There will be at least two short videos (no sound) to watch, approximately a minute long each. There may be more.
Resources:
https://csfieldguide.org.nz/en/chapters/human-computer-interaction/
google classroom
If the video's below don't show, you can find the play list on youtube here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTtc90jCULU&list=PLJOFJ3Ok_idtb2YeifXlG1-TYoMBLoG6I
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8KLbie8Q8C_Yxzkj_-MgOJIvbPT8cJQE
as92006.pdfUnpacking the Standard
Unpacking the Standard
Mātauranga Māori constitutes concepts and principles that are richly detailed, complex, and fundamental to Māoridom. It is important to remember that the practice of these are wider and more varied than their use within the proposed NCEA Achievement Standards and supporting documentation.
We also recognise that the cultures, languages, and identities of the Pacific Islands are diverse, varied, and unique. Therefore the Pacific concepts, contexts, and principles that have been incorporated within NCEA Achievement Standards may have wide-ranging understandings and applications across and within the diversity of Pacific communities. It is not our intention to define what these concepts mean but rather offer some ways that they could be understood and applied within different subjects that kaiako and students alike can explore.
The intent of the Standard
The intent of the Standard
This Standard requires ākonga to identify and evaluate usability principles within human-computer interfaces. They will compare the usability of interfaces and identify how usability principles could be applied to improve usability.
Ākonga may consider a range of usability principles. These could include Nielsen’s usability heuristics and the concepts of:
accessibility
commensurate effort
internal and external consistency
learnability
short-term memory
system response time.
Ākonga could also choose to consider mātāpono Māori to assess the usability of a human-computer interface. This may include considerations such as the accurate and clear use of te reo Māori, orthography (such as the use of macrons), and whether the interface supports aspects of tikanga Māori, for example:
the facilitation of kanohi ki te kanohi interaction
whanaungatanga (such as how the interface supports functionality to connect by waka, maunga, awa, iwi, and hapū as in a pepeha)
wairuatanga (such as how aspects of atua matua are given due recognition within the interface).
Ākonga could also consider if and how the interface supports the expression of mātauranga Māori.
Making reliable judgements
Making reliable judgements
Human-computer interfaces are many and varied. To support the identification, examination, and evaluation of usability principles within an interface, it is important that a suitable interface is chosen. Suitable interfaces will be sufficiently complex to allow ākonga to identify usability principles. Examples of suitable interfaces could be websites with functions such as user sections or shopping features, or software applications with a wide range of user options.
Collecting evidence
Collecting evidence
This Standard will be assessed as set out in the Assessment Specifications provided by NZQA.
Possible contexts
Possible contexts
Ākonga should have the opportunity to explore a range of interfaces built for different devices. Websites or smartphone apps for e-commerce sites or streaming services offer a good starting point. Websites for businesses in Aotearoa New Zealand will give better options for ākonga to discuss the expression of mātauranga Māori.
Commentary from 2023 Trial Exams
Commentary from 2023 Trial Exams
The assessment gave candidates multiple opportunities to identify usability heuristics. Those who incorrectly identified some heuristics in part (b) were still able to provide evidence when comparing interfaces or suggesting improvements.
Some candidates identified only one usability heuristic for each of the three activities selected in part (b), and weaker responses tended to refer to those heuristics throughout the submission. Incorrectly identifying a heuristic meant that candidates were unable to meet the Achieved requirement of correctly identifying three different heuristics.
The step up from Achieved to Merit required candidates to explain how the interface applied usability principles to improve usability. Many candidates stopped short of this, simply identifying heuristics without explaining how their application affected usability.
Candidates should be encouraged to evaluate effectiveness when comparing interfaces. In part (c), many candidates identified similarities and differences between interfaces but did not identify which interface addressed usability principles better.
Candidates should be encouraged to suggest multiple improvements and justify these by explaining how they would improve usability and what heuristics they would apply. A common mistake made in part (d) was that some candidates only suggested one improvement to each interface, despite the question asking for multiple. Candidates also commonly suggested improvements with no justification.
Grade awarding Candidates who were awarded Achievement commonly:
described the purpose of an interface they have studied
identified and described at least one distinct usability heuristic or mātāpono Māori for each of the three activities
illustrated their responses with at least one screenshot.
Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Merit commonly:
clearly explained how the application of heuristics or use of mātāpono Māori improved the usability of the interface
suggested improvements to interfaces but did not justify these by explaining how they could improve usability, or did not refer to heuristics in their explanation.
Candidates who were awarded Achievement with Excellence commonly:
showed a comprehensive understanding of usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
identified multiple similarities and differences between the interfaces in terms of usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
indicated which interface applied usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori more effectively, and gave reasons supporting their evaluation
suggested multiple improvements to each interface in terms of usability heuristics or use of mātāpono Māori • justified improvements by explaining how they would enhance usability.
Candidates who were awarded Not Achieved commonly:
misidentified usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
described the interface activity but omitted references to usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
did not identify more than three usability heuristics or mātāpono Māori
did not address numerous questions and left them unanswered.
Page updated
Report abuse