Task Centered Design and Prototyping Grading Sheet (13%)

Student Names	_____________________	_____________________	_____________________	Group #_______
Student IDs	_____________________	_____________________	_____________________
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, ids, group #s, email...)	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	*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	*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)
sophistication, maturity, and quality	0 (a token effort)	0	0 (wow!)



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 (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	*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)
sophistication, maturity, and quality	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
sophistication, maturity, and quality	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!)
	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 ....... 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.