Interface 2006

Judging Rubric

This is a sample template for illustrating the criteria for judging the contest entries. This template is still under development and may change as it evolves into a final form.

Judges may allocate points corresponding to vacant spaces for an entry to scale for a team's performance (for example, in the Design phase, a team may score '2' or '4' on consistency).

Criterion

Points

5

4

3

2

1

0

Analysis Phase

User Analysis

User Identification
Target user groups are clearly identified and explained

Target user groups are clearly identified

Some of the target user groups are identified

Target user groups are identified but the definitions are unclear

Target user groups are identified but the definitions are confusing

Target user groups are not identified

User/group Characteristics
The relevant characteristics are identified and the relevance is clearly described

The relevant characteristics are identified

Some of the relevant characteristics are identified

Some characteristics are identified but few are relevant

Characteristics are identified but their relevance is suspecct

Characteristics are not identified

Needs and goals
Needs and goals are clearly stated and described

Needs and goals are stated

Some needs and goals are stated

Needs and goals are stated but the statements are not informative

Needs and goals are stated but the statements are irrelevant or inaccurate

Needs and goals are not stated

Prioritization
Needs and goals are prioritized and the rationale for the prioritization is clearly presented

Needs and goals are prioritized and some rationale for the prioritization is presented

Needs and goals are prioritized and the rationale for the prioritization seems obvious

Needs and goals are prioritized but the prioritization is not immediately obvious

Needs and goals are prioritized but the prioritization is isaccurate or irrelevant

Needs and goals are not prioritized

Task Analysis

Task Identification
Tasks are clearly identified and explained

Tasks are clearly identified

Some tasks are identified

Tasks are identified but are unclear or improbable

Tasks are identified but are unrealistic

Tasks are not identified

Common Tasks
Tasks that users will perform often are included and clearly described

Tasks that users will perform often are included and described

Tasks that users will perform often are included

Some tasks that users will perform often are not included

Most tasks that users will perform often are not included

Critical Tasks
Critical tasks are included and clearly described

Critical tasks are included and some description is provided

Critical tasks are included

Some critical tasks are not included

Most critical tasks are not included

Prioritization
Tasks are prioritized with a preference for critical and common tasks and the rationale for the ordering is clearly explained

Tasks are prioritized with a preference for critical and common tasks and the rationale is explained

Tasks are prioritized with a preference for critical and common tasks and the rationale is clearly evident

Tasks are prioritized but critical or common tasks have a low priority

Tasks are prioritized but the prioritization is unclear or inapppropriate

Tasks are not prioritized

Coherence with user needs and goals
Tasks clearly mirror users' needs and goals

Some tasks mirror users' needs and goals

Few tasks satisfy users' needs and goals

Design Phase

Functional Design

Innovation
The design employs an innovative approach

The design includes some innovative features

The design replicates the approach and features of other widely available software

Tasks
The interface supports users in performing critical and common tasks

The interface supports users in some critical or common tasks

The interface does not support in performing most of the critical or common tasks

Sequence of actions
The interface widget layout supports users in performing tasks and provide input in their intuitive order or leverages upon user's existing practices

The interface widget layout requires users to perform tasks or provide input in an unusual but meaningful order

The interface requires users to perform tasks or provide input in an unusual and counter-intuitive order

Flow of information
The interface manages information flow well: it requires users to provide only the necessary information, channels available information between screens and widgets, and stores this information for future use where appropriate, thus minimizing the user's burden for providing information

The interface requires users to provide some extraneous information but otherwise manges information flow well

The interface requires users to provide extraneous information and does not save this information for future use, thus increasing user effort in providing information

The interface requires users to provide some extraneous information and/or does not channel known information between screens

The interface requires users to provide information repeatedly or, in some cases, information that they may not have

The interface does not mange information flow well: it requires users to provide the same information multiple times, does not channel available information between screens and widgets

Feedback
The interface provides relevant, timely, and meaningful feedback for all user actions and keeps users informed of system status and progress of the current operation

The interface provides relevant, timely, and meaningful feedback for critical operations only

The interface provides relevant and meaningful feedback for some critical operations

The interface provides relevant feedback but it is not always meaningful to the users

The interface provides some feedback for user actions but does not indicate system status or progress of the current operation

The interface provides little or no feedback regarding system status, user actions, or progress of the current operation

Consistency
The interface employs similar widgets for similar tasks

The interface contains some inconsistencies

The interface is divergent and there are few or no similarities between widgets and associated tasks

Completeness
The design is complete: the interface supports critical and common tasks

The design is near-complete: the interface supports most of the critical or common tasks

The design is incomplete: many critical or common tasks are not supported

Visual Design

Aesthetics
The interface is aesthetically designed and attracts users

The interface seems pieced together and is unattractive

Gestalt
Widgets with similar or related features near each other, unrelated or dissimilar widgets are distinctly separated

Widgets for similar or related operations are sometimes located in close proximity

Widgets are placed on the interface with littleregard for meaningful grouping

Colors
The interface employs colors appropriately for conveying information to the users effectively

The use of color in the interface confuses the users or is incoherent

Size
Widgets take up only the space necessary and in proportion to their importance (widgets for performing critical or common tasks are emphasized)

There is no connection between the size of widgets and the importance of the tasks that they support

White space
The interface uses the available space effectively and there is little white (unused) space, the interface is not cluttered.

The interface uses the available space effectively and there is little white (unused) space but it looks somewhat untidy

The interface uses the available space ineffectively and leaves a significant amount of white space

Presentation Phase

Completeness of slides
The slides contain relevant information for understanding the team's design

The slides contain relevant information but leave out a few important details

The slides are incomplete

Clarity and organization of presentation
The presentation covered all information necessary for understanding the team's design and was well organized

The presentation covered all information necessary for understanding the team's design but the information was not organized wells
The team did not present sufficient information for clearly understanding their design

Style and delivery
The presentation was well delivered and the presenter made eye contact with the audience

The presentation was not delivered well

Timeliness
The time completed the presentation in time and used the available time effectively

The team completed its presentation in time but did not use time effectively

The presentation ran over the allotted time

Questions
The team answered questions posed by the audience and judges well

The team did/could not answer questions posed by the audience and judges

Criterion	Points
	5	4	3	2	1	0

Analysis Phase
User Analysis
User Identification	Target user groups are clearly identified and explained	Target user groups are clearly identified	Some of the target user groups are identified	Target user groups are identified but the definitions are unclear	Target user groups are identified but the definitions are confusing	Target user groups are not identified
User/group Characteristics	The relevant characteristics are identified and the relevance is clearly described	The relevant characteristics are identified	Some of the relevant characteristics are identified	Some characteristics are identified but few are relevant	Characteristics are identified but their relevance is suspecct	Characteristics are not identified
Needs and goals	Needs and goals are clearly stated and described	Needs and goals are stated	Some needs and goals are stated	Needs and goals are stated but the statements are not informative	Needs and goals are stated but the statements are irrelevant or inaccurate	Needs and goals are not stated
Prioritization	Needs and goals are prioritized and the rationale for the prioritization is clearly presented	Needs and goals are prioritized and some rationale for the prioritization is presented	Needs and goals are prioritized and the rationale for the prioritization seems obvious	Needs and goals are prioritized but the prioritization is not immediately obvious	Needs and goals are prioritized but the prioritization is isaccurate or irrelevant	Needs and goals are not prioritized

Task Analysis
Task Identification	Tasks are clearly identified and explained	Tasks are clearly identified	Some tasks are identified	Tasks are identified but are unclear or improbable	Tasks are identified but are unrealistic	Tasks are not identified
Common Tasks	Tasks that users will perform often are included and clearly described	Tasks that users will perform often are included and described	Tasks that users will perform often are included	Some tasks that users will perform often are not included	Most tasks that users will perform often are not included
Critical Tasks	Critical tasks are included and clearly described	Critical tasks are included and some description is provided	Critical tasks are included	Some critical tasks are not included	Most critical tasks are not included
Prioritization	Tasks are prioritized with a preference for critical and common tasks and the rationale for the ordering is clearly explained	Tasks are prioritized with a preference for critical and common tasks and the rationale is explained	Tasks are prioritized with a preference for critical and common tasks and the rationale is clearly evident	Tasks are prioritized but critical or common tasks have a low priority	Tasks are prioritized but the prioritization is unclear or inapppropriate	Tasks are not prioritized
Coherence with user needs and goals	Tasks clearly mirror users' needs and goals		Some tasks mirror users' needs and goals		Few tasks satisfy users' needs and goals

Design Phase
Functional Design
Innovation	The design employs an innovative approach		The design includes some innovative features			The design replicates the approach and features of other widely available software
Tasks	The interface supports users in performing critical and common tasks		The interface supports users in some critical or common tasks		The interface does not support in performing most of the critical or common tasks
Sequence of actions	The interface widget layout supports users in performing tasks and provide input in their intuitive order or leverages upon user's existing practices		The interface widget layout requires users to perform tasks or provide input in an unusual but meaningful order			The interface requires users to perform tasks or provide input in an unusual and counter-intuitive order
Flow of information	The interface manages information flow well: it requires users to provide only the necessary information, channels available information between screens and widgets, and stores this information for future use where appropriate, thus minimizing the user's burden for providing information	The interface requires users to provide some extraneous information but otherwise manges information flow well	The interface requires users to provide extraneous information and does not save this information for future use, thus increasing user effort in providing information	The interface requires users to provide some extraneous information and/or does not channel known information between screens	The interface requires users to provide information repeatedly or, in some cases, information that they may not have	The interface does not mange information flow well: it requires users to provide the same information multiple times, does not channel available information between screens and widgets
Feedback	The interface provides relevant, timely, and meaningful feedback for all user actions and keeps users informed of system status and progress of the current operation	The interface provides relevant, timely, and meaningful feedback for critical operations only	The interface provides relevant and meaningful feedback for some critical operations	The interface provides relevant feedback but it is not always meaningful to the users	The interface provides some feedback for user actions but does not indicate system status or progress of the current operation	The interface provides little or no feedback regarding system status, user actions, or progress of the current operation
Consistency	The interface employs similar widgets for similar tasks		The interface contains some inconsistencies		The interface is divergent and there are few or no similarities between widgets and associated tasks
Completeness	The design is complete: the interface supports critical and common tasks		The design is near-complete: the interface supports most of the critical or common tasks		The design is incomplete: many critical or common tasks are not supported


Visual Design
Aesthetics	The interface is aesthetically designed and attracts users				The interface seems pieced together and is unattractive
Gestalt	Widgets with similar or related features near each other, unrelated or dissimilar widgets are distinctly separated		Widgets for similar or related operations are sometimes located in close proximity		Widgets are placed on the interface with littleregard for meaningful grouping
Colors	The interface employs colors appropriately for conveying information to the users effectively				The use of color in the interface confuses the users or is incoherent
Size	Widgets take up only the space necessary and in proportion to their importance (widgets for performing critical or common tasks are emphasized)				There is no connection between the size of widgets and the importance of the tasks that they support
White space	The interface uses the available space effectively and there is little white (unused) space, the interface is not cluttered.		The interface uses the available space effectively and there is little white (unused) space but it looks somewhat untidy		The interface uses the available space ineffectively and leaves a significant amount of white space


Presentation Phase
Completeness of slides	The slides contain relevant information for understanding the team's design		The slides contain relevant information but leave out a few important details		The slides are incomplete
Clarity and organization of presentation	The presentation covered all information necessary for understanding the team's design and was well organized		The presentation covered all information necessary for understanding the team's design but the information was not organized wells		The team did not present sufficient information for clearly understanding their design
Style and delivery	The presentation was well delivered and the presenter made eye contact with the audience				The presentation was not delivered well
Timeliness	The time completed the presentation in time and used the available time effectively		The team completed its presentation in time but did not use time effectively		The presentation ran over the allotted time
Questions	The team answered questions posed by the audience and judges well				The team did/could not answer questions posed by the audience and judges