Questions:-

Part A

1. What are the general issues in Multimedia Evaluation?

Answer:

2. In what way multimedia help in education? And what are the different education requirements to implement multimedia in education.

Answer:

3. What do you understand by video compression and explain different compression techniques?

Answer:

4. Explain any three of the following--

• The MIDI Format

Answer:

• The RealAudio Format

Answer:

• The AU Format

Answer:

5. What are the desirable Features for a Multimedia System?

Answer:

6. What is hypermedia and explain any one standard of hypermedia?

Answer:

7. What are the recent trends and challenges in the field of multimedia?

Answer:

8. What is multimedia? What are the different multimedia formats?

Answer:

Part B

Read the case study given below and answer the questions given at the end.

Case Study

Company A is a small company, which worked on a project to develop a kiosk-based integrated multimedia service for the general public. The purpose of the kiosk was to provide users with information about unemployment benefits, and job and training opportunities. It was specifically aimed at the unemployed, and made no assumptions about the users´ having a knowledge of computers or technology in general. The company had no experience of usability and a limited budget, but felt that usability issues were important and hired the services of a usability consultancy.

Usability testing and evaluation was carried out during the development of the kiosk, with the intention of identifying any significant design problems and providing timely and concise input into the development process. The methods used were--

• User survey and profiling
• Walkthrough evaluation
• Usability testing (three)
• User field trials

The user survey and profiling provided important preliminary information about the users that was useful at the design stage. For example, it confirmed that the target audience would be capable of interacting with a computer system that had basic text information, and it provided information about features that the target audience would see as important if they were going to use the system instead of queuing to talk to an information officer.

The walkthrough evaluation consisted of an expert evaluation and a user walkthrough with a usability expert. Several difficulties were identified and, as a result, the design team realized the danger of assuming the users´ level of domain knowledge, and recognized the need for screen layout consistency, the simplification of user tasks, and giving the users a model of the system structure (e.g. a menu structure overview).

The first usability test was carried out in the consultant´s usability testing lab and the participants competed a predefined set of task scenarios that reflected the intended usage of the system. The results of the test provided a focus for future design efforts, by identifying the characteristics of the system that the users felt were most important; and provided a baseline against which the quality of the kiosk could be assessed.

The design team was able to improve the quality of the application from the detailed design recommendations that were made and broke down the complex procedural tasks into simple units of work with immediate access to support information.

The system was redesigned on the basis of the results of the first usability test. The tasks in the second usability test were identical to those of the first test. The second usability test results showed that the redesign of the system resulted in 70% reduction of the number of problems experienced by participants in the first usability test. This showed that the redesign of the user interface had significantly improved the usability of the system, supporting the positive contribution that can be made by usability testing as part of an iterative design process.

The third usability test was conducted in the Department of Social Welfare. The participants performed identical tasks, but half of them used the system with the aid of an online user assistant agent. The results of the tests clearly showed the benefits of the online assistant in helping the participants achieve their goals, and that there were no usability problems that prevented the respondents from using the system when they had access to the online assistant. The improved attitude towards the system, and the respondents´ ability to use the system without direct help provided reassurance to the development team that, with minor redesigns, the system was ready for User Trials.

Please give your answer in at least 25 words and press save and continue button.

1. What is the benefit of usability consultants’ involvement throughout the development process?

Answer.

2. In general, what was the output of user trials and how it can be more effectively implemented?

Answer:

Part C.