Project Grading Sheet

HCILectures.SystemRedesignImplementationGradingSheet History

Show minor edits - Show changes to markup

April 17, 2007, at 10:36 PM by 24.64.76.194 -
Deleted line 222:

(:cell :) O(:cellnr :) of heuristic evaluation

Added line 224:

(:cellnr :) of heuristic evaluation

Added line 227:

(:cell :) O

April 17, 2007, at 10:36 PM by 24.64.76.194 -
Added lines 172-241:

(:cellnr :) Implementation: Technical Aspects (:cell :) Poor (:cell :) Okay (:cell :) Great (:cellnr :) robust/bulletproof (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) sophistication (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) code (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O

(:cellnr :) Demonstration (:cell :) Poor (:cell :) Okay (:cell :) Great (:cellnr :) group present (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) group members all understand project (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) gave a good feel of system (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O

(:cellnr :) Overall impression (:cell :) Poor (:cell :) Okay (:cell :) Great (:cellnr :) of final design (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) of design evolution (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) of portfolio (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O(:cellnr :) of heuristic evaluation (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) of demonstration (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) of implementation (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) of complete project (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O

Changed line 246 from:

'''Note : A is superior report; B is better than expected; C is adequate; D is poor; F is unacceptable

to:

'''Note : A is superior ; B is better than expected; C is adequate; D is poor; F is unacceptable

April 17, 2007, at 10:32 PM by 24.64.76.194 -
Changed lines 82-85 from:



(:cellnr :) Final Design Critique

to:

(:cellnr :) Implementation: completion

Changed line 86 from:

(:cellnr :) indicates major problems

to:

(:cellnr :) depth of interface shown

Changed line 90 from:

(:cellnr :) indicates how they could be solved

to:

(:cellnr :) breadth of interface shown

Changed line 94 from:

(:cellnr :) demonstrates a design evolution

to:

(:cellnr :) non-interface aspects

Changed lines 97-105 from:

(:cell :) O \\

to:

(:cell :) O (:cellnr :) scope of project (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) sophistication and quality (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O\\

Changed lines 108-112 from:

(:cellnr :) fixes major flaws in storyboards

to:

(:cellnr :) Implementation: Graphical Design (:cell :) Poor (:cell :) Okay (:cell :) Great (:cellnr :) visual appearance

Changed lines 116-135 from:

(:cellnr :) Organization (:cell :) 0 (hard to follow) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (well organized) (:cellnr :) use of white space (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) use of illustrations (if any) (:cell :) 0 (adds little) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (really helps) (:cellnr :) overall visual appearance (:cell :) 0 (ugly) (:cell :) 0 (acceptable) (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

to:

(:cellnr :) sensibility of layouts (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) sophistication and quality (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O \\

Changed lines 126-308 from:

(:cellnr :) Language and writing style (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) Spelling/grammar (:cell :) 0 (proof read!) (:cell :) 0 (minor) (:cell :) 0 (good use of language) (:cellnr :) Section structure (:cell :) 0 (hard to follow) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (really flows well) (:cellnr :) Clarity of writing (:cell :) 0 (hard to follow) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (easy to read) (:cellnr :) Style and interest (:cell :) 0 (boring, a yawn) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (grabbed my interest)

(:cellnr :) Section 1: Introduction (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) gives good general background (:cell :) 0 (vague) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (situates the problem) (:cellnr :) describes expected users (:cell :) 0 (vague) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (good detail) (:cellnr :) indicates their context of work (:cell :) 0 (not relevant) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (highly relevant, detailed) (:cellnr :) indicates constraints to the design (:cell :) 0 (not relevant) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (relevant and realistic) (:cellnr :) indicates expected uses of system (:cell :) 0 (vague, a grab bag) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (relevant and realistic) (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Section 1: Concrete task examples (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) situation (:cell :) 0 (completely made up) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (uses real people, real tasks) (:cellnr :) exhibit properties of good task examples (:cell :) 0 (didn't use them) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) accompanying descriptions (:cell :) 0 (little value added) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (indicates task nuances) (:cellnr :) good breadth of tasks and users (:cell :) 0 (key tasks/users missing) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (good coverage) (:cellnr :) describes how tasks were validated (:cell :) 0 (didn't) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (well-validated) (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Section 1: Tentative requirements list (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) lists major requirements (:cell :) 0 (an ad-hoc list) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (shows good insight) (:cellnr :) requirements prioritized (:cell :) 0 (odd set of priorities) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (good choices) (:cellnr :) key users prioritized (:cell :) 0 (odd set of users) (:cell :) 0 0 (good choices) (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Lab presentation of the above (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) preparation (:cell :) 0 (didn't have it ready) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (well-prepared, organized) (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Section 2: Prototype designs (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) uses prototyping method effectively (:cell :) 0 (method not used well) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (excellent use of method) (:cellnr :) gives good feel of interface (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) easy to see how dialog progresses (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Section 2: Walkthrough results (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) lists major problems /successes of walkthrough steps (:cell :) 0 (an ad-hoc list) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :)0 (shows good walkthrough) (:cellnr :) summarizes major design flaws (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) summarizes major design successes (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) indicates next direction (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Lab presentation of the above (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) preparation (:cell :) 0 (didn't have it ready) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (well-prepared, organized) (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Overall impression (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

to:

(:cellnr :) Implementation: Usability (:cell :) Poor (:cell :) Okay (:cell :) Great (:cellnr :) simple and natural dialog (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) speaks the users language (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) minimizes memory load (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) consistent (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) provides feedback (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) clearly marked exits (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) shortcuts for experts (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) user error handling (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) provides relevant help (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) use of windows/dialog structures (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O

April 17, 2007, at 10:26 PM by 24.64.76.194 -
Changed lines 82-85 from:

(:cellnr :) fixes major flaws in storyboards

to:



(:cellnr :) Final Design Critique (:cell :) Poor (:cell :) Okay (:cell :) Great (:cellnr :) indicates major problems

Changed lines 93-96 from:
to:

(:cellnr :) indicates how they could be solved (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) demonstrates a design evolution (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O

(:cellnr :) fixes major flaws in storyboards (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O

April 17, 2007, at 10:25 PM by 24.64.76.194 -
Added lines 1-300:

(:title Project Grading Sheet :)

Student IDs ________________ ________________ ________________

The points below are just "convenience" checkpoints to help structure the grading. However, the grade is mostly based on your project as a whole; getting many satisfactory checks does not necessarily guarantee a good project.

(:table:) (:cellnr :) Completeness of Portfolio (:cell :) Missing (:cell :) Incomplete (:cell :) Satisfactory (:cellnr :) 1st deliverable (screens+design rationale) (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) working demo (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) heuristic evaluation (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) redesign rationale+final design critique (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O

(:cellnr :) Screen snaps/design rationale (:cell :) Poor (:cell :) Okay (:cell :) Great (:cellnr :) practical realization of storyboards (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) fixes major flaws in storyboards (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) shows progress of design (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) good rationale behind design (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) Sophistication and quality of design (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O

(:cellnr :) Heuristic Evaluation (:cell :) Poor (:cell :) Okay (:cell :) Great (:cellnr :) Problems categorized by heuristics (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) Major problems detected (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) Severity ratings are reasonable (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) Main points of the evaluation are summarized (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cellnr :) Sophistication and quality (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O

(:cellnr :) fixes major flaws in storyboards (:cell :) O (:cell :) O (:cell :) O

(:cellnr :) Organization (:cell :) 0 (hard to follow) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (well organized) (:cellnr :) use of white space (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) use of illustrations (if any) (:cell :) 0 (adds little) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (really helps) (:cellnr :) overall visual appearance (:cell :) 0 (ugly) (:cell :) 0 (acceptable) (:cell :) 0 (wow!)
(:cellnr :) Language and writing style (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) Spelling/grammar (:cell :) 0 (proof read!) (:cell :) 0 (minor) (:cell :) 0 (good use of language) (:cellnr :) Section structure (:cell :) 0 (hard to follow) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (really flows well) (:cellnr :) Clarity of writing (:cell :) 0 (hard to follow) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (easy to read) (:cellnr :) Style and interest (:cell :) 0 (boring, a yawn) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (grabbed my interest)

(:cellnr :) Section 1: Introduction (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) gives good general background (:cell :) 0 (vague) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (situates the problem) (:cellnr :) describes expected users (:cell :) 0 (vague) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (good detail) (:cellnr :) indicates their context of work (:cell :) 0 (not relevant) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (highly relevant, detailed) (:cellnr :) indicates constraints to the design (:cell :) 0 (not relevant) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (relevant and realistic) (:cellnr :) indicates expected uses of system (:cell :) 0 (vague, a grab bag) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (relevant and realistic) (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Section 1: Concrete task examples (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) situation (:cell :) 0 (completely made up) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (uses real people, real tasks) (:cellnr :) exhibit properties of good task examples (:cell :) 0 (didn't use them) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) accompanying descriptions (:cell :) 0 (little value added) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (indicates task nuances) (:cellnr :) good breadth of tasks and users (:cell :) 0 (key tasks/users missing) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (good coverage) (:cellnr :) describes how tasks were validated (:cell :) 0 (didn't) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (well-validated) (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Section 1: Tentative requirements list (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) lists major requirements (:cell :) 0 (an ad-hoc list) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (shows good insight) (:cellnr :) requirements prioritized (:cell :) 0 (odd set of priorities) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (good choices) (:cellnr :) key users prioritized (:cell :) 0 (odd set of users) (:cell :) 0 0 (good choices) (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Lab presentation of the above (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) preparation (:cell :) 0 (didn't have it ready) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (well-prepared, organized) (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Section 2: Prototype designs (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) uses prototyping method effectively (:cell :) 0 (method not used well) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (excellent use of method) (:cellnr :) gives good feel of interface (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) easy to see how dialog progresses (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Section 2: Walkthrough results (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) lists major problems /successes of walkthrough steps (:cell :) 0 (an ad-hoc list) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :)0 (shows good walkthrough) (:cellnr :) summarizes major design flaws (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) summarizes major design successes (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) indicates next direction (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Lab presentation of the above (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cell :) (:cellnr :) preparation (:cell :) 0 (didn't have it ready) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (well-prepared, organized) (:cellnr :) sophistication, maturity, and quality (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!)

(:cellnr :) Overall impression (:cell :) 0 (a token effort) (:cell :) 0 (:cell :) 0 (wow!) (:tableend:)

Grade: A+ ... 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.'''