The Technical Communication of Video Games

Major Assignments

Table of contents

How the major assignments work

Each of the three major assignments runs on a draft, peer review, revise cycle:

This gives you a week to draft, time for peer response, and a week to revise before the final is due to me. Peer feedback follows the Critical Response Process.

Principles in action

Draft due: Thursday, September 17 · Peer review due: Sunday, September 20 · Final due: Sunday, September 27

Assignment rationale

This assignment asks you to start noticing technical communication principles in action. By closely examining a form of onboarding (in the gaming sense, the “initial tutorial”) of a real product or company and identifying principles it is using, you will better understand how different design and wording choices impact the efficacy of the onboarding.

Where to start

Revisit Week 2’s “First contact” chapter. Then, select one onboarding artifact that is not from a game and not named in any of the assigned readings. Options include an informational kiosk, a workplace training video, an orientation module, or a product startup guide. Review it as a total beginner would. Identify the principles at work at each step. Some elements or approaches may be effective, while others may not. Point these out, but note that the focus of the next major assignment is deeper analysis.

What is due

Submit a 5-7 minute narrated slide presentation where you show the artifact and share your analysis. Identify any technical communication principles being used (or being violated). You can use the principles named in any of the readings, or you can identify and name your own. The presentation should demonstrate an understanding of how the selected artifact conveys information to the end user.

With your draft, include two or three specific questions for peer feedback, and indicate which areas you are open to opinions on (per the Critical Response Process).

Tips and resources

Grading rubric (80 points)

Criterion Full marks Most Some Not yet
Artifact selection (5 points) Onboarding material for a real product or company. Not discussed in any assigned reading, and not a game. Onboarding material, not a game, but closely related to an example named in a reading. Only partly onboarding material, or the scope of the artifact is unclear. The artifact is a game, or is not onboarding material.
Principles identified (25 points) Principles are identified at each step of the onboarding, each clearly attached to what is on screen. Principles are identified across most of the onboarding, with one or two steps passed over. A few principles are identified, mostly at the beginning, or named without being attached to specific steps. Principles are not identified, or are asserted with no connection to the artifact.
How the artifact conveys information (30 points) Explains how the material communicates to an end user meeting it for the first time, following the sequence a beginner encounters. Explains how most of the material communicates, but skips or reorders part of the beginner’s sequence. Describes what the material contains more than how it communicates. No explanation of how the artifact conveys information.
Artifact shown and described (10 points) The artifact is shown and described clearly. Each claim points to a particular screen, step, or moment in the artifact. The artifact is shown and described, with a few places where the description is thin or vague. The artifact is shown, but the description stays general and relies on the images to do the work. The artifact is not shown, or is shown with no description.
Narrated presentation (5 points) Narration is audible throughout and paced for listening. Slide text is legible. Narration is audible and slide text legible, with brief lapses. Narration is difficult to hear in places, or slide text is difficult to read. Narration is missing, or the presentation cannot be followed.
Within required length (5 points) Within the required length. One minute longer or shorter than the required range. Two minutes longer or shorter than the required range. Shorter than three minutes, or longer than ten minutes.

Peer review

Complete a detailed peer review of one peer’s posted video that includes a short description of the presentation’s strengths, one objectively-worded sentence for each rubric item above, and any other minor tips or suggestions that might improve the presentation, especially if the audio is difficult to hear or the text is difficult to read.

Back to top

Heuristic evaluation or usability study

Draft due: Thursday, October 15 · Peer review due: Sunday, October 18 · Final due: Sunday, October 25

Assignment rationale

Practitioners do not evaluate interfaces by intuition. They use structured, recognized methods that produce evidence other people can examine and use. This assignment moves you from noticing a principle to evaluating an artifact against a defined set of criteria. You will apply a real research method that technical communicators and UX professionals use today. Your findings should be grounded in evidence, organized for a reader, and tied to clear recommendations, the kind of deliverable a workplace would actually use.

Read through both options below and choose one.

Heuristic evaluation option

A heuristic evaluation is an expert inspection. You judge an artifact against criteria you name in advance and report where it holds up and where it fails. Choose your artifact. Strong candidates include a self-checkout kiosk, a patient portal, tax or banking software, an EV charging interface, assembly instructions, or even a game’s onboarding or HUD. Confirm you can access it enough to evaluate it thoroughly.

Start with Moran, K., & Gordon, K. (2023, June 25). How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. Nielsen Norman Group. It works through a real evaluation and includes a free fillable workbook.

What is due. Submit a completed heuristic evaluation that:

Tips.

Worksheet: Heuristic evaluation worksheet (PDF)

Back to top

Usability study option

First, familiarize yourself with a usability test through the assigned readings as well as:

Then, choose your artifact. Strong candidates include a self-checkout kiosk, a patient portal, tax or banking software, an EV charging interface, assembly instructions, or even a game’s onboarding or HUD. Confirm that you can access the artifact enough to evaluate it thoroughly.

What is due. Submit a usability study report that:

Tips.

Worksheet: Usability study worksheet (PDF)

Back to top

Grading rubric (80 points)

Criterion Full marks Most Some Not yet
Artifact selection (5 points) An artifact rich enough to surface real issues, and accessible enough to evaluate thoroughly. A workable artifact, though narrow or only partly accessible. Too thin or too inaccessible to support the method. No artifact identified, or it cannot be evaluated.
Method documented (15 points) The method is documented well enough to be repeated. For a heuristic evaluation, the heuristic set with its source and the scope inspected. For a usability study, the participants, the tasks as given, and the procedure. Most of the method is documented, with one element missing or thin. The method is named but not documented well enough to repeat. No account of the method.
Findings supported by evidence (25 points) Every finding is specific and tied to evidence a reader could confirm: a screen, a step, an observation, or a participant quote. Most findings are tied to evidence; a few are asserted. Findings are listed, but evidence is general or largely missing. No findings, or findings with no evidence.
Severity rated and cited (10 points) A severity scale is named, cited, and each level defined. Every finding is rated. A scale is used and most findings rated, but the source or the level definitions are incomplete. Severity is mentioned but applied inconsistently or left undefined. No severity rating.
Recommendations (15 points) Each finding is paired with a specific, actionable recommendation, ordered by severity. Most findings have recommendations; some stay general. Recommendations are present but vague or not tied to findings. No recommendations.
Organization and APA (10 points) Logically organized headings, findings in a table or well-organized list, and APA used throughout, including the template and any source adapted. Mostly organized, with a few heading or APA lapses. Hard to navigate, or APA largely missing. No discernible organization.

Peer review

Complete a detailed peer review of one peer’s posted report: a short description of the report’s strengths, one objectively-worded sentence for each rubric item above, and any other minor tips or suggestions that might improve the report, especially if the organization is hard to follow or a claim lacks evidence. You may review either type of report, but please read at least one draft representing the other option (if you review a heuristic evaluation, also read a usability study, and vice versa).

Back to top

Principle Paper

Draft due: Thursday, November 12 · Peer review (optional, up to 10 extra credit points) due: Sunday, November 15 · Final due: Sunday, November 22

Assignment rationale

Major Assignment 1 asked you to identify principles. Major Assignment 2 asked you to evaluate against them. This assignment asks you to use one or more technical communication principles as leverage for a claim: that something should change, that following the principles would improve an outcome, or that the principles themselves extend further than they are usually applied. The form you choose depends on who needs to hear the argument: an industry, a design team, leadership, or a scholarly reader.

Where to start

Choose what you are arguing about: an industry-wide approach or method, a specific product, a design choice, or an artifact at a company, real or fictional. Identify one or more technical communication principles at work in it, drawn from the course readings or from research of your own. Then choose the form that fits your argument and your audience. Whatever you choose, ground your claim in at least three course readings and support it with evidence from what you are arguing about.

What is due

Submit a completed project. Choose one of the following forms.

Tips and resources

Grading rubric (80 points)

Criterion Full marks Most Some Not yet
Topic selection (5 points) The topic (industry practice, product, design choice, or artifact) is specific and substantive enough to support a genuine argument. The topic is workable but somewhat narrow or under-defined. The topic is too vague or too broad to argue about specifically. No clear topic identified.
Claim (15 points) A specific, arguable claim: that something should change, would improve, or that a principle extends further than usually applied. A reader could state it in one sentence. The claim is present but partly buried in description, or not fully arguable. The document mostly describes rather than argues. No identifiable claim.
Principles identified and grounded (20 points) One or more technical communication principles are clearly named and grounded in course readings and additional research. Principles are named and mostly grounded, with one connection thin or unclear. Principles are named but only loosely connected to scholarship. No principle clearly identified or connected to scholarship.
Evidence (20 points) Every claim is tied to specific evidence from the topic: a feature, a moment, a document, an observation. Most claims are tied to evidence; a few are asserted. Evidence is general or thin. No evidence, or evidence disconnected from the claim.
Form and genre fit (5 points) The document reads like a genuine example of its chosen genre (white paper, rationale document, position memo, or seminar paper) in structure, tone, and address to its stated audience. Mostly fits the genre, with a few structural or tonal lapses. Genre is named but the document does not consistently read like one. No discernible genre conventions.
Citations and APA (15 points) Cites at least 5 sources: course readings or peer-reviewed journal articles, in APA format throughout, supporting the argument rather than padding it. Mostly cited correctly in APA format, with minor errors or a citation that does not clearly support the claim. Fewer than 5 sources, or sources are not peer-reviewed. No citations, or citations that do not connect to the argument.

Peer review (optional, up to 10 extra credit points)

Post a draft by Thursday. Peer review by Sunday follows the Critical Response Process: lead with statements of meaning, ask neutral questions rather than opinions in disguise, and, if you offer a redirect, frame it as your reading rather than the correct one and tie it to evidence.

Back to top

Assignment details are subject to revision. Confirm current versions in Canvas.