| Student Names | ____________________ | ____________________ | ____________________ |
Structure and format |
|||||
| Included | Not included | ||||
| Portfolio uses a binder | 1 | 0 | |||
| Section separators | 1 | 0 | |||
| Names on outside cover | 1 | 0 | |||
| Names and contact information on the first page | 1 | 0 | |||
| This grading sheet included in portfolio | 4 | 0 | |||
| Complete | Missing portions | Not included | |||
| Table of contents | 2 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Great: no problems | Good: a few minor problems | Poor: Problems throughout (your mark in other sections may also be affected as well) | |||
| Appearance (organization, layout and whitespace) | 6 | 4 | 0 | ||
| No typos, grammatical or spelling errors, clear writing style | Minor typos or grammatical errors or spelling mistakes or some writing may be a bit vague | Problems in two areas (spelling, grammar, style) | Problems in all three areas | ||
| Language and writing style | 7 | 5 | 3 | 0 | |
Setting the stage |
|||||
| Clear and complete (yes) | Clear and complete (no) | ||||
| Background | 1 | 0 | |||
| System constraints | 1 | 0 | |||
| Lists user groups along with relevant skills and experience | Lists user groups with no additional information | Information not included | |||
| Expected users | 2 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Clear & complete | Some information missing or unclear | Information not included | |||
| Work context | 2 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Spoke directly with actual users | Spoke with a representative of the user | Made it all up | |||
| Approach for getting background information for tasks | 2 | 1 | 0 | ||
Tasks |
|||||
| Appropriate No. (~ 5 - 7) | Fewer than what's needed for the usage of the system | No tasks were included in the portfolio | |||
| Number of tasks | 2 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Covers all relevant activities, at least one unsupported activity | Missing a few important tasks | Missing many important tasks | No tasks were included in the portfolio | ||
| Coverage of the tasks | 8 | 6 | 2 | 0 | |
| No violations | A few minor violations | Many violations throughout | No tasks were included in the portfolio | ||
| Do the tasks follow the properties of a good task? | 8 | 6 | 2 | 0 | |
Prototypes |
|||||
| Four or more | Two or three | One | |||
| Number of versions/iterations | 2 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Marked improvement from version to version | Few and/or superficial changes from version to version | No evolution between prototype versions | |||
| Evolution of prototypes | 6 | 2 | 0 | ||
| Provides clear idea of how prototype changed from version to version | Describes changes but some parts are unclear | None | |||
| Description of how prototypes evolved | 4 | 2 | 0 | ||
Requirements |
|||||
| Requirements are grouped into categories with clear and detailed explanations based on the users and their tasks | Requirements are grouped into categories, no indication of how functions were put into particular categories | Requirements are shown in a single list, no attempt at prioritization | No requirements listed | ||
| Description of system functions to be implemented | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
Walkthroughs |
|||||
|
|
Walkthroughs for all relevant tasks (excludes infrequent and unimportant tasks) | One | Zero | ||
| Number of walkthroughs performed | 4 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Walkthroughs conducted, all or most usability problems were caught | Walkthroughs conducted, some minor problems were missed | Walkthroughs conducted, many minor or several serious problems were missed | Walkthrough not performed | ||
| Results of conducting the walkthrough algorithm | 10 | 8 | 4 | 0 | |
| Walkthrough results summarized for each
scenario/task An analysis conducted that summarized for all tasks what are the high level and major problems |
Walkthrough results summarized for each scenario/task but not for all tasks | Walkthroughs conducted and results shown in table but no additional analysis, summarizing problems | |||
| Analysis of walkthrough results | 6 | 3 | 0 | ||
| Walkthroughs easy to follow (e.g., included diagrams at all relevant points of walkthrough, diagrams are annotated) | Some points of the walkthrough difficult to follow (e.g., walkthrough description didn't match interface, additional diagrams would have made things clearer) | Walkthroughs not conducted | |||
| Ease of following/tracing the walkthroughs | 6 | 3 | 0 | ||
Tutorial presentations |
|||||
| Provides clear background information, good tasks presented, requirements properly categorized | Minor problems: some background information unclear, minor violations in the descriptions of the tasks, requirements could better justified | Poor: task violate many properties of good tasks, or background missing or largely incomplete, requirements are not justified | No presentation | ||
| First presentation: Steps one and two | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | |
| Walkthrough: caught most problems, clear
indication of what future improvements should be Prototype: Gives a good feel for how the interaction unfolds, covers main system functions |
Walkthrough: Missed a few minor problems in the
walkthrough Prototype: Some parts of the interaction unclear, a few minor system functions (relevant to task) or a major function is missing
|
Walkthrough: Missed many minor problems in the walkthrough
or a few major usability problems Prototype: several main system functions missing |
Walkthrough: Many serious problems were missed in the
walkthrough Prototype: main system functions were missing |
||
| Second presentation: Steps three & four | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | |
| Reminder: you also need to include your signed contribution forms when you hand in your portfolio. For each week you can use either of the two approaches (depending whether or not the work was equally divided for the week). I won't be able to grade your assignment unless you do hand in your signed contribution form. | |||||