| Student Names | _____________________ | _____________________ | _____________________ | |
| Student IDs | _____________________ | _____________________ | _____________________ | |
| Note: These are just "convenience" checkpoints. Getting many satisfactory checks does not necessarily indicate a good project (or vice versa). | ||||
| Completeness of Portfolio | Missing | Incomplete portions | Satisfactory |
| Follows recommended portfolio design (binder, labeled index section separators etc) |
0 | 0 | 0 |
| front cover information (title, names, ids, group #s, email...) |
0 | 0 | 0 |
| table of contents | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| grading sheet | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Section 1: Introduction | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Section 1: Concrete task examples | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Section 1: Tentative list of requirements | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Section 2: Prototype designs | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Section 2: Walkthrough results | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Appearance (e.g., organization, use of white space ,use of illustrations (if any), overall visual appearance) | Poor
0 |
Okay
0 |
Great
0 |
| Language and writing style (e.g., spelling/grammar, section structure, clarity of writing, style and interest | |||
|
Poor 0 |
Okay 0 |
Great 0 |
|
| Section 1: Introduction | Poor | Okay | Great. |
| gives good general background | 0 (vague) | 0 | 0 (situates the problem) |
| describes expected users | 0 (vague) | 0 | 0 (good detail) |
| indicates their context of work | 0 (not relevant) | 0 | 0 (highly relevant, detailed) |
| indicates any constraints to the design | 0 | 0 | 0 (relevant and realistic) |
| indicates expected uses of system | 0 (vague, a grab bag) | 0 | 0 (relevant and realistic) |
| overall | 0 (a token effort) | 0 | 0 (wow!) |
| Section 1: Concrete task examples | Poor | Okay | Great. |
| situation | 0 (completely made up) | 0 | 0 (uses real people, real tasks) |
| exhibit properties of good task examples | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| accompanying descriptions | 0 (little value added) | 0 | 0 (indicates task nuances) |
| good breadth of tasks and users | 0 (key tasks/users missing) | 0 | 0 (good coverage) |
| describes how tasks were validated | 0 (didn't) | 0 | 0 (well-validated) |
| overall | 0 (a token effort) | 0 | 0 (wow!) |
| Section 1: Tentative requirements list | Poor | Okay | Great. |
| lists major requirements | 0 (an ad-hoc list) | 0 | 0 (shows good insight) |
| requirements prioritized | 0 (odd set of priorities) | 0 | 0 (good choices) |
| key users prioritized | 0 (odd set of users) | 0 | 0 (good choices) |
| overall | 0 (a token effort) | 0 | 0 (wow!) |
| Lab presentation of the above | Poor | Okay | Great. |
| preparation | 0 (didn't have it ready) | 0 | 0 (well-prepared, organized) |
| sophistication, maturity, and quality | 0 (a token effort) | 0 | 0 (wow!) |
| Section 2: Prototype designs | Poor | Okay | Great. |
| uses prototyping method effectively | 0 (method not used well) | 0 | 0 (excellent use of method) |
| gives good feel of interface | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| easy to see how dialog progresses | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| overall | 0 (a token effort) | 0 | 0 (wow!) |
| Section 2: Walkthrough results | Poor | Okay | Great |
| lists major problems and successes of walkthrough steps | 0 (an ad-hoc list) | 0 | 0 (shows good walkthrough) |
| summarizes major design flaws | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| summarizes major design successes | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| indicates next direction | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| sophistication, maturity, and quality | 0 (a token effort) | 0 | 0 (wow!) |
| overall | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lab presentation of the above | Poor | Okay | Great. |
| preparation | 0 (didn't have it ready) | 0 | 0 (well-prepared, organized) |
| sophistication, maturity, and quality | 0 (a token effort) | 0 | 0 (wow!) |
| Overall impression | 0 (a token effort) | 0 | 0 (wow!) |
Grade: 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
Students are invited to see the T.A. for further comments on
their report.