prototype 5

Guiding questions

Bare minimum

Satisfactory effort & performance

Above & Beyond

TOTAL

PART A Product Concept(40)

mobile context analysis: was the mobile context analysis clearly and concisely completed? (5)

target user group : is it clear that you have considered in depth the target population for your mobile application; were at least 3 proto-personas included (10)

feasibility was there enough evidence provided to show that the concept is considered and the group has investigated feasibility (5)

heuristic evaluation feedback:

was it obvious how feedback from the heuristic evaluations were part of your decision making?

was there a list of changes that you decided to make /include in the next design iteration that came from your HE feedback? (5)

product canvas:

did you clearly outline your product concept including the name, vision, how it’s likely to be used; main features, risks, measures of success and how your concept relates to the project brief and your design observations? (15)

(0 - 19)

· Little, very brief or no outline of product to be developed

· User group very broad and undeveloped or unclear

· Unclear how feedback from HE was part of the decision making or what information was used to shape the next design iteration

· Little or no evidence provided about product feasibility

· Mobile analysis document not included or only partially or briefly completed – no depth of thinking evident

· Product canvas unclear, not done, confused

(20- 29)

· Some information provided on the product concept but there were gaps.

· Some details of the user group provided – needs more development

· Some detail provided about the use of heuristic evaluation feedback with a reasonable and logical number of changes listed though these are obvious and straightforward.

· HE changes only vaguely related to product concept

· Some evidence & justifications for feasibility provided where necessary. Team member contributions unclear

· Mobile context analysis completed and included showing some consideration of issues.

(30 -40)

· Clear delineation of what will be built, and how it relates to work done to date.

· Thoughtful and detailed definition of the target user group

· Several changes listed for design iterations , which demonstrate insight and reflection on the HE feedback.

· Extensive evidence & appropriate justifications provided to support concept feasibility showing how the group was involved.

· Clear, concise response to the mobile context analysis

PART B Implementation Plan (25)

plan scope

does your plan include work to be done for the next 7 weeks of semester & with all deliverables included (6)

inclusions

· did you provide an implementation plan with well-defined chunks of development?

· are responsibilities clear?

· are your deadlines feasible? Ie not all Sunday or Monday

· is the time line organized so that you will finish developing on time? (15)

documentation & sharing

· available and presented in required formats with sharing enabled

· are outside constraints included? (4)

(0 - 11)

· Implementation plan is sparse and does not cover all requirements

· Inclusions seems haphazard with lack of clarity about who is doing what when.

· Some aspects of the planning are either lacking or appear not feasible

· Documentation barely meets requirements and no reference to external responsibilities are mentioned

(12- 20)

· implementation plan is divided into good sized development chunks,

· each assigned a person responsible for it.

· some individual responsibilities seem too big or small compared to the others, or are not clearly assigned to someone.

· most of the time line is well organized.

· most deadlines seem feasible.

· a few parts of the timeline seem a little unreasonable or idealistic.

· outside constraints briefly included

(21-25)

· Implementation plan is thought through and logically divided into development chunks.

· Responsibilities are well defined and leverage the skills of your group members.

· time line is outstanding,

· well estimated deadlines,

· takes unforeseen problems into account

· all competing priorities considered.

PART C Functional Prototype (FP - MVP) (25)

homescreen & landing pages (12)

Did you develop a home screen and navigational skeleton?

Was there cohesion between the functional prototype and Product Canvas

server space (5)

Is the code available through a web address?

(0 - 11)

· home screen has little content, navigation is incomplete.

· URL not available

· not loaded on a server

· no structure or vague information provided

· Difficult to see how the FP relates to documentation

(12- 20)

· most of the home screen is complete

· all major navigational components are mostly present.

· structure shows how the nav will work

· It is possible to see how the FP fits the documentation

(21-25)

· home screen and navigational skeleton are very thorough and well planned.

· the navigational skeleton gives a real feel for the flow of the application and is clearly thought through.

· the next few weeks will be to "fill in the blanks".

· Detailed structure showing the possible interaction flows that the app will have.

· Closely related to documentation.

coding choices (0)

prototype developed with tool

prototype developed with JavaScript, HTML, CSS

Originality (10)

While this is a detailed set of criteria as is the assessment outline, students always do creative things.

This score is available to recognise those student teams who go beyond what is expected in the three parts of this prototyping and planning exercise

· Prototype building

· Planning

· Product concept development and description

Planning

Product concept development and description

Prototype building

Submission requirements observed:

Yes

No

Team Members

Points

Grade