| Student Names | _____________________ | _____________________ | _____________________ | Group #_______ |
| Student IDs | _____________________ | _____________________ | _____________________ | |
| Note: These are just "convenience" checkpoints. Getting many satisfactory checks does not necessarily indicate a good project (or vice versa). | ||||
| Completeness of Project | Missing | Incomplete portions | Satisfactory |
| initial outline+ storyboard | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| screens+design rationale | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| working demo | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| minimalist manual | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| final design critique | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Storyboard/outline | Poor | Okay | Great. |
| gives good feel of task | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| explains its expected audience | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| indicates possible difficulties | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| gives good feel of interface | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| easy to see how dialog progresses | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| quality of initial design | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Screen snaps/design rationale | Poor | Ok | Great |
| practical realization of storyboards | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| fixes major flaws in storyboards | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| shows progress of design | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| good rationale behind design | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| quality of design | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Minimalist manual | Poor | Okay | Great |
| concise | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| task-centered | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| illustrations (if any) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| overall appearance | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| spelling/grammar | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| section structure | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| clarity of writing | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| style and interest | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| is it useful? | 0 | 0 | |
| Design Critique | Poor | Okay | Great |
| indicates major problems | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| indicates how they could be solved | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| demonstrates a design evolution | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Implementation |
|||
| Completion | Poor | Okay | Great |
| depth of interface shown | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| breadth of interface shown | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| non-interface aspects | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| scope of project | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| sophistication | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Graphical design | Poor | Okay | Great |
| visual appearance | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| sensibility of layouts | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Usability | Poor | Okay | Great |
| simple and natural dialog | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| speaks the users language | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| minimizes memory load | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| consistent | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| provides feedback | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| clearly marked exits | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| shortcuts for experts | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| user error handling | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| provides relevant help | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| use of windows/dialog structures | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Technical aspects | Poor | Okay | Great |
| robust/bulletproof | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| sophistication | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| code | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Demonstration | Poor | Okay | Great |
| group present | |||
| group members all understand project | |||
| gave a good feel of system | |||
| Overall impression | Poor | Okay | Great |
| of final design | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| of design evolution | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| of portfolio | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| of manual | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| of demonstration | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| of implementation | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| of complete project | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Grade: A+ ...... A ....... A- ....... B+ ....... B ....... B- ....... C+ ....... C ....... C- ....... D+ ....... D ....... D- ....... F+ ....... F ....... F-
Note : A is superior report; B is better than expected; C
is adequate; D is poor; F is unacceptable
Turn over for evaluator's comments and/or see report. Students
are invited to see the T.A. for further comments on their report.