Task Centered System Design / Prototyping Grading

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.

Completeness of Portfolio Missing Incomplete Satisfactory
Binder with labeled section separators O O O
Cover has title, names, ids, group #s, email... O O O
Grading sheet O O O
Table of contents O O O
Section 1: Introduction O O O
Section 1: Concrete task examples O O O
Section 1: Tentative list of requirements O O O
Section 2: Prototype designs O O O
Section 2: Walkthrough results O O O

Appearance Poor Okay Great
Organization 0 (hard to follow) 0 0 (well organized)
use of white space 0 0 0
use of illustrations (if any) 0 (adds little) 0 0 (really helps)
overall visual appearance 0 (ugly) 0 (acceptable) 0 (wow!)


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

Section 1: Introduction
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 constraints to the design 0 (not relevant) 0 0 (relevant and realistic)
indicates expected uses of system 0 (vague, a grab bag) 0 0 (relevant and realistic)
sophistication, maturity, and quality 0 (a token effort) 0 0 (wow!)

Section 1: Concrete task examples
situation 0 (completely made up) 0 0 (uses real people, real tasks)
exhibit properties of good task examples 0 (didn't use them) 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)
sophistication, maturity, and quality 0 (a token effort) 0 0 (wow!)

Section 1: Tentative requirements list
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)
sophistication, maturity, and quality 0 (a token effort) 0 0 (wow!)

Lab presentation of the above
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
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
sophistication, maturity, and quality 0 (a token effort) 0 0 (wow!)

Section 2: Walkthrough results
lists major problems /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!)

Lab presentation of the above
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 ... 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.'''