A: Exceeding expectations
B: Meeting expectations
C: Not-quite meeting expectations
D/F: Not meeting or failing expectations
Grading Focus: Git activity, deliverables, quantity and quality of exploration.
A: Deliverables demonstrate more exploration than outlined in the brief, and GitHub activity shows work through-out the project timeline and an even (50/50) distribution of coding and asset contributions between group members.
B: Deliverables meet the expected amount of process exploration outlined in the brief, and GitHub activity demonstrates work through-out most of the project timeline and fairly even (45/55) distribution of coding and asset contribution between group members.
C: Some of the required weekly deliverables are missing, and GitHub activity demonstrates a slightly irregular and fairly uneven (40/60) distribution of coding and asset contribution (The contribution by this individual was the lesser half.
D/F: GitHub activity demonstrates the majority of the project was completed in the days leading up to the deadline, and/or little to no contribution by this individual.
Grading Focus: Code validity, code readability, cleanliness of folder structure.
A: Code is human readable and uses a sensible naming convention (i.e. for files, classes or id's). Semantic and valid HTML5, CSS3 and JS (if applicable) with absolutely no errors. File and folder structure is clean.
B: Code is human readable and uses a sensible naming convention (i.e. for files, classes or id's). Semantic and valid HTML5, CSS3 and JS (if applicable) with up to 4 minor errors (things we have not taught you). File and folder structure is clean.
C: Code is human readable and uses a somewhat problematic naming convention (i.e. for files, classes or id's). Valid HTML5, CSS3 and JS (if applicable) with 1 major error (things we have taught you directly) and up to 4 minor errors. There are some minor concerns with the cleanliness of the file and folder structure.
D/F: Code is not human readable, nor valid HTML5, CSS3 and JS (if applicable) with 4+ major errors or more. There are numerous concerns with the cleanliness of the file and folder structure.
Grading Focus: Consistency, responsive design, interface and interaction elements.
A: In addition to achieving a 'B', the website demonstrates effective use of 'atomic design' principles and visual interaction cues to help the user transfer their experiences between devices more effectively.
B: Website presents consistent aesthetic with clear interface and interaction elements that effectively adapt and/or respond to user devices and browsers.
C: Website presents fairly consistent aesthetic with some unclear interface and interaction cues that adapt and/or respond somewhat effectively to most user devices and browsers.
D/F: Lack of clear aesthetic direction and interface with little to no adaptive or responsive consideration.
Grading Focus: Information architecture, effective content, website accessibility and usability (8pts)
A: In addition to accomplishing 'B', the site makes use of purposeful collections of content (i.e. image, text, calls-to-action, etc) to help the user drive deeper into the website. The website makes use of ARIA landmarks to create an accessible experience for assistive devices.
B: There are clear and effective connections built between different sections through use of well structured and effective content and interface elements. All content required of the brief is included. The website demonstrates a fairly unified and accessible experience (ie. aesthetics, interactions) that would instill a sense of trust in the intended user.
C: Some of the connections between sections are somewhat unclear, or interface elements and content lead to potential user confusion. Slightly less content than required of the brief is included. The website demonstrates a somewhat unified and accessible experience (ie. aesthetics, interactions) that supports the user sufficiently to complete a purchase.
D/F: The content and interface elements confuse or entirely misdirect the user. Significantly less content than required of the brief is included. The website demonstrates a non-unified experience that has little support for accessibility (ie. aesthetics, interactions).