AIT 101 FINAL PROJECT

Group composition: Maximum of 3 students (The same group as Midterm Project)

DIRECTION:
1. Revisit your Midterm Project. Using your approved prototype, conduct an evaluation survey minimum
of 50 respondents. Respondents lesser than the number mentioned is considered if and only if number
of specific respondents is 100% already.
2. The evaluation survey result must show that the prototype is acceptable. Otherwise, prototype must
be redesign and survey will be reconducted until results shows acceptable rate.
3. Develop the prototype using any framework when developed as mobile app, MVC/MVT when
developed as web app.
4. Prepare documentation. Template is provided below.
5. Project Presentation. Submit softcopy at masaoLMS and one hardcopy during the presentation.
o May 1-2, 2024 (Graduating Students) & May 6-8, 2024 (Non-Graduating Students)

Rubric (Group Scoring):

The following table outlines the criteria for scoring and evaluating the group project.

Level Interpretation Character of the Contribution

5 Excellent The presentation/project has the following qualities:
1. Demonstrates a deep understanding of the platform.
2. Thoroughly evaluate the platform based on HCI principles.
3. Presents high-fidelity wireframes or prototypes that
effectively illustrate the redesigned user interface and
interaction flows.
4. Delivers a clear and engaging presentation, effectively
showcasing the redesigned platform.
4 Satisfactory The presentation/project lacks at least one of the above qualities
but is above average in quality. A level 4 presentation/project
demonstrates a strong understanding and implementation of the
HCI principles in redesigning the platform.
3 Average The report lacks or only partially meets several of the required
qualities. A level 3 presentation/project demonstrates a reasonable
understanding and implementation of the HCI principles in
redesigning the platform.
2 Minimal The report presents little evidence of the above qualities. A level 2
presentation/project demonstrates a nominal understanding and
implementation of the HCI principles in redesigning the platform.
1 Unacceptable The report does not demonstrate an understanding and
implementation of the HCI principles in redesigning the platform.

Score Multiplier
Highest Possible
Components (*Presentation and
Score
**Documentation)
Prototype Evaluation Result * x3 5 x 3 =15
** x3 5 x 3 = 15
Database Integration * x2 5 x 2 = 10
** x2 5 x 2 = 10
* x5 5 x 5 = 25
UI/UX of the Redesigned Application
** x5 5 x 5 = 25
15+10+25 = 50
TOTAL HIGHEST SCORE: 15+10+25 = 50
100 pts

Peer Grading (Individual Scoring): *This will be provided by the instructor during the presentation date.

Each student will rate his/her groupmates and self-rate based on the contribution in the format of %. Minimum of 1% and
maximum is 100%. The individual score will be calculated based on the equation given:
𝑃𝐺1 + 𝑃𝐺2 + 𝑆𝐺
𝑰𝑺 = 𝐺𝑆 ∗ ( ∗ 0.01)
3
 where GS is the total score received by the group;
 where PG1 and PG2 is the Peer Grade given by group members, and SG is the grade you given to your self
 where IS the total individual score the student will receive.
 PLATFORM EVALUATION AND REDESIGN CHALLENGE (Phase 2)
IT 101 - Final Project

Platform Name: PhilJobNet

Platform Homepage: https://philjobnet.gov.ph/login.aspx
Proposed Design: https://www.figma.com/proto/E4wCnMBbWEeYYwEuAR0kFH/Free-
Gmail-GUI-Inbox-2021-(Community)?type=design&node-id=193-
144&scaling=scale-down&page-id=0%3A1&starting-point-node-
id=228%3A3539&show-proto-sidebar=1
Evaluators and Developers: Gavino, Rhona Jane/ Balmocena, Gerald /Apilada, Annamae

I. Prototype Evaluation Result

The evaluation was conducted through a Google Form survey with 57 respondents, particularly
targeting job seekers. The User Acceptance Testing (UAT) Questionnaire was utilized, incorporating usability and
acceptability criteria. A five-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree was employed for
respondents to express their level of agreement with each proposition. Each question addressed specific aspects
of usability and acceptability of the mobile application prototype. After collecting responses, the Likert scale
scores were converted to numerical values, and the SUS scores were calculated for both usability and
acceptability categories. the overall SUS score was computed as the average of the two category scores, providing
a comprehensive assessment of the prototype's usability and acceptability.
The Usability of Mean: 4.085213033. This mean falls within the range of "Usable, Acceptable" (3.41-
4.20). It indicates that the system, particularly in terms of usability, is functioning well. Users find it easy to
navigate and interact with the features provided. The system is considered usable and acceptable by the
respondents. And the Acceptability of Mean: 4.235588972. This mean falls within the range of "Very Usable, Very
Acceptable" (4.21-5.00). which suggests that the system, in terms of acceptability, is performing excellently. Users
not only find it usable but also highly acceptable. They are satisfied with the features, content, and design of the
system. which indicates a very positive perception of the system's acceptability among the respondents.
Result:

SUS Average Score Grade Adjective Rating Mean

A. USABILITY 72.5 B Good 4.085213033

B. ACCEPTABILITY 71.09649123 B Good 4.235588972

Survey & Result Link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c-SjIxBRYvFOklGCAHu_UO_gCL9KWmwTo1x_gJ0Fvj8/edit?
resourcekey#gid=598826384

II. Database Integration

Backend: (Firebase BaaS): API Calls such as createJob, deleteJob, and others.
Database: (Firestore under Firebase)
 a flexible, scalable database for mobile, web, and server development from Google. It's part of the Google
Cloud Platform, designed to store and sync data for client- and server-side development, providing real-time
data synchronization across all connected devices.
 Firestore is a NoSQL document database, which means it stores data in flexible, JSON-like documents.
 It offers features such as automatic scaling, real-time updates, offline support, and seamless integration
with other Google Cloud services.

Server Side and Logic: Dart

 Object-Oriented: Dart is designed for building applications by organizing code into reusable pieces called
objects.
  Strongly Typed: Dart requires specifying data types for variables, which helps catch errors early.
 Automatic Memory Management: Dart handles memory management automatically, making it easier for
developers.
 Asynchronous Programming: Dart supports writing code that can handle multiple tasks simultaneously
without waiting for each to finish.
 Modern Syntax: Dart uses a clear and modern style that's easy for developers to understand.
 Cross-Platform: Dart lets developers create apps for various platforms like web, mobile, and desktop.
 Tooling Support: Dart comes with useful tools to help developers write and manage their code effectively.
User Interface: Flutter
 Flutter is a toolkit by Google for building apps across different platforms like mobile, web, and desktop, using a
single codebase.
Database Structure and Definition:
1. Storing/Fetching Client/Job Seeker Data:
 Database Structure:
 Collection: users
 Document: [User ID]
 Sub-collection: personal_information
 Document: data (contains personal information)
 Data Definition:
 Each user has a document containing their personal information under the personal_information sub-
collection.

2. Storing/Applied Jobs Client/Job Seeker:

 Database Structure:
 Collection: users
 Document: [User ID]
 Sub-collection: job_applied
 Document: [Job ID]
 Sub-collection: [Fields] (e.g., application status, date applied)
 Data Definition:
 Users can apply for multiple jobs, each represented by a document under the job_applied sub-
collection. Each job document contains additional fields related to the application.

3. Storing Employer Information:

 Database Structure:
 Collection: users
 Document: [Employer's User ID]
 Sub-collection: personal_information
 Document: data (contains employer's personal information)
 Data Definition:
 Employers have their own document containing personal information under the personal_information
sub-collection.

4. Storing Job Posting Information:

 Database Structure:
 Collection: users
 Document: [Employer's User ID]
 Sub-collection: job_posting
 Document: [Job ID] (contains job details)
 Data Definition:
 Employers can post multiple job postings, each represented by a document under the job_posting sub-
collection.

5. Storing Job Applicants Information:

 Database Structure:
 Collection: users
 Document: [Employer's User ID]
 Sub-collection: job_applicants
 Document: [Job Applicant's ID] (contains applicant details)
 Data Definition:
 Employers can track job applicants for each job posting, with applicant details stored under the job
applicant’s sub-collection.
III. UI/UX of the Redesigned Application
IV. Project Experience and Journey
The prototype evaluation process began with face-to-face interviews conducted with 25 job seekers and 25 employers
from the five identified employment generator industries in Butuan City. The aim was to understand the challenges
faced by both groups in fulfilling their main tasks of job applications and job hiring, respectively. Additionally, their
opinions on the effectiveness of existing government-introduced information systems, the PhilJobNet, were sought.

Among the notable comments from the interviews was the recognition of the potential utility of the existing systems,
provided they were designed with the users' capacity in mind. Specifically, job applicants emphasized the prevalence of
mobile phones or Android smartphones as their primary devices, highlighting the need for mobile-friendly applications.
Furthermore, concerns were raised regarding the digital literacy levels of the respondents, where the web system isn’t
that accessible to the respondents especially the job applicants especially when verification codes are sent via email
along with the updates of the application status which makes the users disappointed and prefer not to use the system.

Following the user interviews, the implementing agencies, including DEP-ED, DOLE, PESO, TESDA, and PSA, were
approached to verify the identified problems through guided questions. To highlight, PESO confirmed the existence of
some non-utilization of the system by job seekers, further validating the concerns raised during the user interviews to
the job applicants however one of the reasons she raised about the non-utilization of the system is that the design is
not pleasing to the eyes, not enticing, the navigation experience is somehow vague and confusing. With the informative
feedback from the respondents, we came up with the proposed redesign highlighting the user-centric design taking into
consideration the accessibility of the system to a mobile-based design.

In summary, the prototype evaluation process involved gathering insights from both job seekers and employers, as well
as validating these findings with relevant implementing agencies. The results highlighted the importance of designing
user-friendly and accessible systems that address the specific needs and challenges faced by stakeholders in Butuan
City's job market.