Submission 2 Rubric - Low-Fidelity Prototyping Report (25%, Individual Submission)

Criteria No Pass Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction Very High Distinction

Less than 50% 50–59% 60–69% 70–79% 80–89% 90-100%

Storyboards: 30%

Narrative of the storyboards is not Narrative of the storyboards is Narrative of storyboards is clear, Narrative of storyboards is Narrative of storyboards is Narrative of storyboards is clear

clear / storyboard is not linked to somewhat unclear and link to user link to user story/persona is reasonably clear and link to user clear and link to user and link to user story/persona is

user story or persona / storyboard story or persona is vague. There present and there are two story/persona is reasonably story/persona is obvious. obvious. There are two

is too short (<3 frames) or there are two storyboards. A persona is storyboards but all focus on very obvious. There are two There are two storyboards that storyboards that meaningfully

Storyboards - are fewer than two storyboard. shown with accessibility similar user stories/personas. storyboards that consider consider different types of consider significantly different

Narrative and Link to Accessibility is not considered in needs/impairments that could affect Accessibility needs/impairments of different user stories/personas users and their needs. types of users and their needs.

User any storyboard, or the persona is their ability to interact with the the persona are only addressed in though there are a number of Accessibility A storyboard considers

Stories/Personas, shown with a interface, but the storyboard does a superficial manner. similarities between some needs/impairments of the accessibility needs/impairments

Accessibility disability/impairment that does not actually demonstrate this storyboards. Accessibility persona are addressed and how this affect's the

not affect the user's ability to happening. needs/impairments of the thoroughly. persona's ability to use the app

interact with the app/interface. persona are addressed with a in a meaningful manner.

reasonable amount of

consideration.

Descriptions do not match Mostly descriptions of action or UI Roughly even split between screen Storyboards focus mostly on the Clear text description with Meaningful and clear text

storyboard visuals. Storyboards with little focus on the user's designs and user/environment. user's thought process/emotions consideration of user description with consideration of

Storyboards - are incomprehensible/messy, or emotions/thought process or their Storyboard is comprehensible but rather than device screens and emotions/thoughts and their user emotions/thoughts and

Description and visuals are not actually environment. Storyboards are parts are difficult to interpret and/or are generally nicely presented. environment. Storyboards are their environment. Storyboards

Presentation storyboard (eg. only screen messy. have insufficient description. Visual Text descriptions provide some clearly drawn and easy to are clearly drawn and easy to

designs/UI). No indication of presentation of the storyboard additional context to the interpret. interpret.

user's emotions/thought process. could be neater/tidier. scenario.

Low-Fidelity Prototypes: 40%

Acceptance criteria for some user Acceptance criteria for some user Each user story provides Each user story provides Each user story provides Each user story provides

stories is not provided or the stories are vague or unclear. An acceptance criteria but some are acceptance criteria but some are acceptance criteria, organised complete and clear acceptance

items listed are not actually attempt has been made at not complete or clear. A Kanban not complete or clear. A Kanban using a Kanban board. criteria, organised well using a

Acceptance Criteria

acceptance criteria. No attempt at organising the acceptance criteria board has been used, but with board has been used, but with Kanban board. Considers

organising the acceptance but this has been done incorrectly. several issues. some minor issues. accessibility as well as general

criteria. usability.

Screens included are not linked to Screens included only have a Screens address one or two user Screens address a few user Screens address a good Screens address a good variety

user stories or requirements. vague link to user stories or stories/requirements, but include a stories and requirements, though variety of user stories and of user stories and

Low Fidelity

requirements. number of unnecessary elements have some unnecessary or requirements with very few requirements.

Prototype - Link to

(eg. unrelated to user stories, low unrelated elements or low priority unnecessary or unrelated

Requirements

priority functions not addressed in functions. elements.

previous documentation).

Prototype is extremely rough and Prototype is somewhat complete Prototype is mostly legible, some Prototype is legible and mostly Prototype is clearly designed, Prototype is clearly designed to

layout/functions are but inconsistent, and parts are attempt to represent UI elements, consistent, with some minor consistent UI and realistic a professional standard,

unclear/inconsistent and/or there illegible and there are some but incomplete or inconsistent or design issues, but generally proportions. Function and consistent UI and realistic

Low Fidelity

are numerous/significant usability usability violations. with some minor usability complies with usability principles. layout of app is obvious and proportions. Function and layout

Prototype - Design

violations. Prototype is not low- violations. usability principles are of app is obvious and usability

fidelity. complied with. principles are adhered to

exceptionally well.

Aspects of the design actively Accessibility is not well considered Screens address accessibility Screens address accessibility Prototype considers a range of Prototype considers a wide

violate accessibility guidelines or or it is implemented in a very adequately, but only consider one adequately, considering more impairments and accessibility range of impairments and

Low Fidelity

principles. Accessibility options shallow/rudimentary fashion; e.g. type of impairment rather than a than one impairment, but only at needs. accessibility needs.

Prototype -

are related to the project button to change font size and variety. a superficial level.

Accessibility

domain/topic but not to nothing else, not considering the

app/interface accessibility. target group.

No or very few annotations, no Some annotations, but few theories Annotations of Norman's principles Annotations included, Norman's Annotations included as well Annotations included as well as

Low Fidelity theories labelled (ie. annotations labelled and/or theories are not and WCAGs included, but theory is principles and WCAGs are as accurate and use of accurate and meaningful use of

Prototype - are interface element labels only). Norman's principles and/or incorrectly applied. mostly applied well aside from Norman's principles and Norman's principles and

Annotations accessibility annotations are not some minor issues. WCAGs in the labels. WCAGs in the labels.

from WCAGs.

Written Report: 30%

Report re-iterates content from Report provides only vague or a Report provides some justification Report provides some Report provides solid Report provides meaningful

previous deliverables without small amount of justification for for design decisions with some link justification for design decisions justification for design justification for design decisions

Written Report - further insight. design decisions with little link to to user stories or requirements. with a solid link to user stories or decisions based on user based on user stories,

Design Choices user stories or requirements. requirements. stories, requirement or requirement or acceptance

acceptance criteria with some criteria with detailed further

further reflections. reflections.

Superficial description of UI only, Three Norman's principles are Three Norman's principles are Three Norman's principles are Three Norman’s design Three Norman’s design

Written Report - or theories applied are not mentioned in the report but many mentioned in the report but some mentioned in the report and principles are mentioned in the principles are mentioned in the

Theories and Norman's (or there are fewer than are inadequate/vague or applied are inadequate/vague or applied mostly applied correctly, with a report and applied correctly. report and applied meaningfully

Principles three Norman's principles). incorrectly and/or some are incorrectly. reasonable variety of and correctly.

repeated. rules/principles used.

No explanation/justification of Three accessibility Three accessibility Three accessibility/WCAG There is solid discussion of There is meaningful discussion

how accessibility has been principles/WCAGs have been principles/WCAGs have been principles have been discussed how three accessibility/WCAG of how three

applied in the prototype screens. applied in the prototypes but applied in the prototypes and focus in a reasonable amount of detail principles have been applied. accessibility/WCAG principles

Fewer than three accessibility explanation/justification is on two types of and mostly applied correctly, Three types of accessibility have been applied. A wide

principles have been discussed or superficial. Three impairment/disability but focusing on at least two types of needs are acknowledged, variety of accessibility needs

Written Report -

none have been applied correctly. accessibility/WCAG principles have explanation/justification is accessibility. correctly applied and are acknowledged, correctly

Accessibility

been discussed, but not in enough superficial. discussed. Guidelines are applied and discussed.

detail, or only focuses on one type spread out evenly across Guidelines are spread out

of accessibility (eg. vision screens. evenly across screens.

impairment only) and/or some are

not applied correctly.

Poor writing, vocabulary not Acceptable writing, numerous Reasonable writing, vocabulary is Good writing with only a few High-quality writing, High-quality writing, vocabulary

accurate or articulate, poorly spelling/grammatical errors and/or generally accurate or articulate, grammatical errors and overly vocabulary is consistently is of a professional standard

structured sentences with awkward sentences. All sentences may be long and long sentences. accurate or articulate, clearly with no grammatical errors.

frequent grammatical errors. deliverables/report sections present contain some grammatical errors Deliverables/report sections are structured sentences with Deliverables/report sections

Some deliverables/report sections but some are incomplete and/or not or contain unnecessary present and in a reasonably none or only a very few well tied together. Clear flow of

missing or incomplete. Parts not in a logical order. Visual complexity. All deliverables/report logical order. Some effort has grammatical errors. ideas through all deliverables.

Written Quality and logically connected. presentation is mostly consistent sections present and complete, but been put into the design and Deliverables/report sections Visual design and presentation

Visual Quality Inconsistencies in visual but very plain, with very little effort very standalone or not in a logical presentation (ie. graphics on the well tied together. Clear flow of of the document is consistent

presentation (ie. different heading put into the presentation. order. Partially consistent design title page, matching subheading ideas. Consistent design and professional (ie.

styles, mismatched fonts or language throughout (ie. colours, styles etc) with very few and/or language and almost- appropriate title page template,

colours, etc.) and/or no effort heading styles, fonts, etc.) but a minor consistency issues. professional level of matching graphical style

made to improve the presentation number of inconsistencies (e.g. presentation (ie. title page throughout document).

of the document. images being cut off, etc). template, matching graphical

style throughout document).