Task Centered Design and

Prototyping Grading Sheet (13%)

Student Names	____________________	____________________	____________________
Email	____________________	____________________	____________________
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)	0	0	0
Inside cover information (title, names, email addresses)	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)


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!)
Summarizes and synthesizes the results from each walk through and for the whole system.	0 (no analysis)	0	0 (trends extracted for each task and system)


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

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 TA for further comments on their report.