prototype

Guiding questions

Bare minimum

Satisfactory effort & performance

Above & Beyond

PART1 Need/Point of view. (10) GROUP

Does your point of view:

· relate to the design brief,

· relate to your observations

· clearly express a problem / opportunity,

· clearly convey what a good solution might look like

0 – 3;

The problem is unclear / missing, the solution requirement is unclear / missing, or the point of view is unrelated to the design brief.

4- 7

The need (pov) relates to the brief. The problem and solution requirement are stated, but the solution requirement is either too general (anything that solves the problem meets the requirement) or too specific (only one particular implementation meets the requirement).

8-10

The problem and solution requirement are clearly stated.

The requirement provides focus without demanding one specific implementation.

PART 2

Storyboards (TOTAL 30)

GROUP: Do ALL the Group’s storyboards: (Max 5)

· address your point of view?

· diverge in the solutions?

0;

The storyboards are hard to follow and/or do not address the point of view

3;

The storyboards reasonably address the point of view.

Solutions don't diverge much.

5;

The storyboards are easy to follow and have diverging solutions

Individual: your Storyboard (Max 25)

Does your storyboard:

· communicate your alternative clearly?

· give a clear understanding of how your idea will work in context

0-5-10;

It’s hard to understand the alternative presented and only a vague idea of how the idea will work in context,

11- 15- 22;

The alternative is reasonably clear and different to other group members. However the reader may have lingering questions about the situations depicted or the differentiation of the solutions.

23 -25;

Very clear communication - Someone else could come up with distinct prototypes just from looking at your storyboards.

Paper prototypes (30)

GROUP: As a group (Max 5)

· Did you explore clearly different interfaces?

· Were all paper prototypes dynamic: did they ‘feel’ like a working application?

· Were interactions included?

0;

Prototypes incomplete in significant ways or all were too similar to distinguish the different interface.

3

Prototypes mostly complete (ie some interactions included) and illustrated some distinct interfaces but with many shared similarities.

5

The prototypes explore three different interfaces and included enough detail to feel like a working application

Individual: your Paper prototype (Max 25)

Does your paper prototype

· Have a clear interface

· ‘Feel’ like a working application?

· Show the interaction flows

· Have some creative interactions implemented

0 – 3 - 6;

· Prototype was incomplete and/or included little interaction

· Many screens refer to screens that are not prototyped – i.e. leading to dead ends

· Often unclear what a certain screen does.

7 -10 -13;

The purpose of each screen is clear with most interactions flows reasonably clear. A user looking at the prototype may sometimes have questions about:

· how to navigate between screens,

· how to use a form on a screen, or

· what some element on a screen is doing there.

14-15;

Prototype demonstrated enough detail so that:

· a user can get a good feel for how the application works and flows

· a programmer can use the prototypes to implement a skeleton Web application that has working forms and links.

Communication/Write Up (Max 15)

· Clarity of write up submitted

· Requirements followed

· Quality of digital documentation

· Reference to appropriate sources

0-7:

Difficult to understand generally.

Not presented as an academic piece of work.

8-12

Reasonably clear communication,

Requirements generally followed Some resources used

13 -15

Clear, coherent document that includes all requirements. Originality demonstrated in the application and use of academic sources.

General originality (15)