| Student Names | ____________________ | ____________________ | ____________________ |
| Emails | ____________________ | ____________________ | ____________________ |
| 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 |
| Original submission for the first assignment | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Part I, A3: Screens & redesign rationale (TA marks this) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Part II, A3: Heuristic evaluation (may or may not be required) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Part II, A3: Redesign rationale & final design critique | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Working end of term demo | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Horizontal prototype | |||
| Quality and completeness of the redesign rationale (TA marks this) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Screen snaps/final design rationale | Poor | Ok | Great |
| Fixes major flaws in horizontal prototype | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Good rationale behind design | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Design critique indicate major problems? | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Design critique indicates how these problems may be solved. | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Evaluating each group's Heuristic Evaluation (may or may not be required) | Poor | Okay | Great |
| Problems categorized by heuristics | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Major problems detected | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Severity ratings are reasonable | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Main points of the evaluation are summarized | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sophistication and quality | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Completed system | Poor | Okay | Great |
| Depth of interface shown | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Breadth of interface shown | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Non-interface aspects | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Graphical design | Poor | Okay | Great |
| Visual appearance | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sensibility of layouts | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Evaluating the project according to Heuristics (may or may not be conducted) | 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 |
| Technical aspects | Major problems | Adequate | |
| Robust/bulletproof | 0 | 0 | |
| Final term demonstration | Unacceptable | Adequate | |
| Group present? Group members all understand project? Gave a good feel of system? |
0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 0 | ||
| Overall impression | Poor | Okay | Great |
| Final design | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Design evolution | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Portfolio | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Heuristic evaluation (may or may not be required). | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Implementation | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Grade: A ....... A- ....... B+ ....... B ....... B- ....... C+ ....... C ....... C- ....... D+ ....... D ....... D- ....... F
Note : A is superior; B is better than expected; C is
adequate; D is poor; F is unacceptable
Students are invited to see the course instructor for further comments on
their report.