Michelle Blomberg
One project, built in parts. Every student designs a product experience for the brand they built in Graphic Design 1, so each project starts from the student’s own identity work, no two are alike, and the courses connect. Each module adds one scaffolded piece, research, prototype, component library, evaluation, and they assemble into a single defended case study. Practice is carried by four interactive simulations; the summative is the defense.

Seat time by module: M0 4h · M1 14h · M2 18h · M3 22h · M4 16h · M5 20h · M6 14h · M7 24h · Total 132h (3 credits).

Resources, and my own OER. The demo videos are mine, course-authored and captioned screen-recorded technique walkthroughs that are the OER I contribute. They are complemented by openly-licensed and public-domain materials (Laws of UX, W3C WAI, 18F Methods, The A11Y Project) and free-to-cite professional references (Nielsen Norman Group, Material Design, Apple Human Interface Guidelines). Licensing is stated on each.

Course learning outcomes

Modules

Module 0Getting Startedabout 4 hours

Overview

Before the design work begins, this module orients the learner to the course, the tools, and the one project that runs the whole term. It sets the expectation that this course is assessed on reasoning as much as on artifacts, and that the project builds on the brand each student created in Graphic Design 1, so the two courses connect and every project is the student’s own.

By the end of this module you will be able to

  • Locate the syllabus, module map, and grading, and restate how the one project builds across the course.
  • Set up the Discord critique space and the Miro planning board.
  • Describe the difference between formative practice and the summative case study.

1 · Watch

▶ My orientation video my OER · captioned: how the course works, backward design and constructive alignment in plain terms, and a tour of where the schedule, deliverables, critique, and glossary live.

2 · Read

  • The syllabus and module map my OER, and the course key-terms glossary that grows each module.
  • A short primer on the weekly rhythm: post-by, reply-by, captions, and the disclosure policy for AI use.

3 · Practice

A low-stakes orientation self-check confirms what students know before Week 1, supporting self-regulated learning.

4 · Assessment

◎ Formative, completion. Students post an introduction that names the Graphic Design 1 brand they will carry and a personal reason it matters to them. AI-resistance: it is anchored to their own brand and motivation. Deliverable: the project’s starting brand is set.

5 · Discussion — Regular and Substantive Interaction

Instructor welcome and check-in. Students post their intro and brand, then reply to two peers. The instructor responds in threads and flags anyone who has not engaged.

Module 1Foundations & HCIabout 14 hours

Overview

This module builds the vocabulary and the way of seeing that the rest of the course depends on: what UX is and is not, how it differs from graphic design, and why human-centered thinking emerged. Students start reading interfaces critically, naming principles at work and where they break.

By the end of this module you will be able to

  • Describe UX principles and how UX differs from graphic design.
  • Identify cognitive load and at least three Laws of UX in a real interface.
  • Connect one idea from HCI history to a design decision.

1 · Watch

▶ My concept lecture my OER · captioned: problem framing, usability and user goals versus visual polish; cognitive load, affordances and signifiers, feedback and consistency; a first look at heuristics; and a short arc of HCI history.

2 · Read

3 · Practice

  1. Play Can’t Unsee, judging which of two near-identical interfaces is more correct, to train your eye for spacing, hierarchy, and consistency.
  2. Do an interface teardown in Miro: mark three principles at work and one that is violated.
  3. Write one paragraph distinguishing a UX decision from a graphic-design decision on the same screen.
◎ Formative self-check: a principle-spotting exercise that maps real examples to the right Law of UX, scaffolding the vocabulary before it is graded.

4 · Assessment

◎ Formative. AI-resistance: tied to the student’s own annotated screenshots. Deliverable: name the user and the product need for their brand.

5 · Discussion — Regular and Substantive Interaction

Post the teardown by Wednesday, give feedback to four classmates by Sunday, and log it. The instructor responds and surfaces recurring patterns.

Module 2Human-Centered Process & User Researchabout 18 hours

Overview

Design starts with people, not screens. This module places the project inside a human-centered process and gives students the core research and synthesis moves: interviews and lightweight surveys, affinity mapping, working personas, and the discipline of turning findings into decisions rather than opinions.

By the end of this module you will be able to

  • Outline a human-centered process and place the project within it.
  • Conduct a short interview or lightweight survey and record findings.
  • Synthesize findings into an affinity map and translate three insights into decisions.

1 · Watch

▶ My research lecture my OER · captioned: the research-synthesis-ideation-delivery arc; interview and survey methods with an ethics and consent note; and how an insight becomes a decision.

2 · Read

3 · Practice

  1. Run two short interviews or a small survey on the brand’s users and capture your notes.
  2. Build an affinity map in Miro, write a one-sentence problem statement, and list three decisions the research supports.
◎ Affinity-mapping and card-sort simulation: cluster a provided set of research snippets into themes and compare your grouping to a model pass, so you practice synthesis, the step beginners skip, before doing it on your own data.

4 · Assessment

◎ Formative. AI-resistance: graded on the student’s own data and the reasoning linking findings to decisions. Deliverable: a validated problem statement, an early persona, and prioritized decisions.

5 · Discussion — Regular and Substantive Interaction

Post the problem statement and affinity map by Wednesday, feedback to four by Sunday, and log it.

Module 3Wireframing, Prototyping, Mobile & Responsiveabout 22 hours

Overview

Now the research becomes something you can click. Students learn fidelity levels and user flows, the mechanics of prototyping, mobile conventions and platform guidelines, and responsive layout across screen sizes, keeping the work anchored to the decisions from Module 2.

By the end of this module you will be able to

  • Produce wireframes and an interactive prototype in an industry-standard tool.
  • Design a mobile interface to current conventions and a platform guideline.
  • Design a responsive web layout that adapts across three sizes.

1 · Watch

▶ My prototyping demo videos my OER · captioned: fidelity levels and user flows, prototyping mechanics (frames, links, states, clickable flows), and responsive breakpoints, fluid grids, and content priority.

2 · Read

3 · Practice

  1. Practice layout logic with Flexbox Froggy and Grid Garden, so responsive behavior is intuitive before you design it.
  2. Wireframe the core flow, then build a clickable prototype of it.
  3. Produce one mobile screen set and one responsive layout at phone, tablet, and desktop.
◎ Spot-the-accessibility-barrier simulation: scan sample screens for contrast, touch-target, and reflow issues and name the fix, building an evaluative eye before the critique loop in Module 5.

4 · Assessment

◎ Formative. AI-resistance: graded on flow logic and how the design answers the student’s own research, with a short rationale per major choice. Deliverable: a working prototype of the core flow, mobile and responsive.

5 · Discussion — Regular and Substantive Interaction

Post the prototype and screen sizes by Wednesday, feedback to four by Sunday, log it; the instructor models one strong flow critique.

Module 4AI in the Design Workflowabout 16 hours

Overview

AI is part of the design workflow now, so students learn to use it well and judge it honestly: where it helps (divergent ideation, placeholder assets, copy drafts, rapid iteration) and where human judgment is required. The through-line is critical evaluation against real user needs, plus attribution and disclosure.

By the end of this module you will be able to

  • Integrate AI tools into ideation, assets, and iteration on the project.
  • Evaluate AI output critically, keeping what serves users and revising what does not, with a rationale.
  • State where AI helped and where human judgment was required.

1 · Watch

▶ My AI-in-design lesson my OER: where AI fits, prompting for design work and its limits, and critical evaluation for bias, accessibility gaps, and generic solutions that ignore the research, with a disclosure format.

2 · Read

  • Laws of UX CC BY-NC-SA, the yardstick for judging whether an AI suggestion actually serves users.

3 · Practice

  1. Use an AI tool to generate alternatives or assets, then select and refine toward your research.
  2. Write a short before-and-after: one AI suggestion you kept, one you rejected, and why, judged against UX principles.
◎ Guided critique: compare AI-generated screens against your project’s research decisions and flag where the output drifts from real user needs.

4 · Assessment

◎ Formative. AI-resistance: the task grades critical judgment about AI output on the student’s own project, so uncritical generation scores poorly. Deliverable: a refined iteration with an honest account of AI use.

5 · Discussion — Regular and Substantive Interaction

Post AI-assisted iterations with the disclosure note by Wednesday, feedback to four by Sunday, log it; discussion centers on judgment, not novelty.

Module 5Design Systems & Usability Evaluationabout 20 hours

Overview

Students carry their Digital Graphic Arts I brand into a reusable component library, then learn to evaluate: Nielsen’s ten heuristics, a basic usability check, and the discipline of turning findings into a prioritized fix list. Reuse and evaluation are where consistency and quality come from.

By the end of this module you will be able to

  • Build and apply a reusable component library, carrying the brand into the interface.
  • Evaluate a design against Nielsen’s 10 heuristics and record findings.
  • Run a basic usability check and translate results into prioritized fixes.

1 · Watch

▶ My component-library demo my OER · captioned: tokens, components, states, and why the brand is the source of the color, type, and spacing tokens; plus running a heuristic evaluation and a short usability check.

2 · Read

3 · Practice

  1. Build a small component library (buttons, inputs, cards, navigation) from the brand and apply it across screens.
  2. Run a heuristic evaluation and one short usability check, then produce a prioritized fix list.
◎ Heuristic-evaluation simulator (Nielsen’s 10): flag violations on sample screens and compare to an expert pass. Plus the usability-test role-play with a synthetic participant who behaves like a real, sometimes confused user, so you practice running and reading a session before doing it for real.

4 · Assessment

◎ Formative. AI-resistance: evaluation is performed on the student’s own and a peer’s screens; grades depend on severity reasoning and the resulting revisions. Deliverable: a component-driven, evaluated, revised design.

5 · Discussion — Regular and Substantive Interaction

Post the library and heuristic findings by Wednesday, feedback to four by Sunday, log it; the instructor summarizes recurring violations.

Module 6Spatial & AR/VRabout 14 hours

Overview

The final concept module stretches the students’ principles into space. They examine what carries over from screen to spatial contexts (hierarchy, affordances, feedback) and what changes (depth, field of view, comfort, input), and judge when a spatial or AR approach genuinely serves the user.

By the end of this module you will be able to

  • Explain how screen conventions translate, and fail to translate, into spatial and AR contexts.
  • Propose a spatial or AR concept for one part of the project and justify it.
  • Identify new constraints: depth, field of view, comfort, input.

1 · Watch

▶ My AR/VR lesson my OER: a screen-to-spatial translation framework, the new spatial concerns, and when spatial or AR genuinely serves the user versus when a flat screen is better.

2 · Read

3 · Practice

  1. Storyboard a spatial or AR version of one project moment, noting what changes.
  2. Write a short justification of when the spatial version helps the user and when it does not.
◎ Concept critique in Miro: map screen conventions to their spatial equivalents and flag what breaks, transferring earlier principles to a new context.

4 · Assessment

◎ Formative. AI-resistance: anchored to the student’s specific project and researched users; grading rewards the reasoning about fit. Deliverable: a spatial concept extension for the case study.

5 · Discussion — Regular and Substantive Interaction

Post the storyboard and justification by Wednesday, feedback to four by Sunday, log it; the prompt centers on user benefit and comfort, not spectacle.

Module 7Case Study, Portfolio & Presentationabout 24 hours · summative

Overview

The term’s scaffolded pieces assemble into one coherent case study, research through final design, and the student presents and defends it. This is the summative: the evidence is what the student can produce, explain, and defend, which is also what makes it resistant to generative substitution.

By the end of this module you will be able to

  • Assemble the term’s work into one coherent case study, research to final design.
  • Present completed work visually and verbally and defend decisions.
  • Respond to questions about reasoning, research, and response to critique in a live Q&A.

1 · Watch

▶ My case-study and presentation lesson my OER: case-study structure (problem, research, decisions, iterations, evaluation, outcome), presenting reasoning rather than only screens, and preparing to defend trade-offs.

2 · Read

3 · Practice

  1. Assemble the case study from the deliverables built in Modules 2 through 6.
  2. Record a presentation walkthrough, captioned or scripted, so no one has to present live to the whole class.
  3. Post a draft walkthrough for a dry-run critique and self-assess against the rubric before final submission.

4 · Assessment

◆ Summative, the defended case study: a recorded walkthrough plus a live Q&A, graded on process and reasoning as well as the artifact. Why it resists generative substitution: the project is built on the student’s own brand and researched users, and the live defense requires explaining their own fifteen weeks of decisions in real time, which cannot be outsourced to a model. Deliverable: the completed, defended case study and portfolio piece.

5 · Discussion — Regular and Substantive Interaction

Post the draft case study and walkthrough by the posted date, feedback to four, log it; the live Q&A defense is scheduled individually or in small groups.