Task Centered Design and Prototyping Grading Sheet (13%): Be sure to bring it to tutorials (for presentations) and include it in your portfolio

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.