A: Exceeding expectations
B: Meeting expectations
C: Not-quite meeting expectations
D/F: Not meeting or failing expectations
Grading Focus: Deliverables, quantity and quality of exploration.
A: Deliverables demonstrate more exploration both in quantity and quality than outlined in the brief.
B: Deliverables meet the expected amount of process exploration outlined in the brief.
C: Some of the required weekly deliverables are missing.
D/F: Numerous weekly deliverables are missing or little to no demonstrated weekly deliverables.
Grading Focus: Code validity, efficiency, progressive enhancement.
A: Code uses preprocessing, compression and request reduction to increase page-loading efficiency and render valid HTML5, CSS3 and JS (if applicable) with absolutely no errors. Code ensures accessibility of content through use of the principles of progressive enhancement.
B: Code uses preprocessing and compression to increase page-loading efficiency and render valid HTML5, CSS3 and JS (if applicable) with up to 4 minor errors (things we have not taught you). Code ensures accessibility of content through use of the principles of progressive enhancement.
C: Code does not attempt to increase page-loading efficiency, and renders 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 concerns with the accessibility of the content due to code implementation.
D/F: Code does not attempt to increase page-loading efficiency, and renders invalid HTML5, CSS3 and JS (if applicable) with up to 4 major errors (things we have taught you directly) and up to 8 minor errors. There are significant accessibility concerns due to code implementation or the page is inaccessible due to code implementation.
Grading Focus: Coherence of branding, clear personality and styling.
A: Presents a thoughtful & engaging visual language that is organized & consistent across the document; elements present an exceptional design ethos. Composition & content structure complement the visual argument & provide an exceptionally readable portfolio.
B: Presents an effective visual language that is organized & consistent across the document; elements present a credible design ethos, with a few minor lapses. Composition & content structure complement the visual argument for the most part & provide a readable portfolio.
C: Presents a limited visual language that often lacks clarity in organization & consistency; elements present an average design ethos, with a number of lapses. Composition & content structure are often confusing; the visual argument is unclear, often hindering the readability of the portfolio.
D/F: Presents little or no evidence of a visual language strategy; elements are disorganized, unfinished or missing & present a poor design ethos; Composition & content structure confuse and hinder readability and create a high level of audience resistance.
Grading Focus: Consistency, effective responsive (or adaptive) design, positive emotional engagement, quality of 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 and engage them with an overall positive experience of the portfolio.
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. There are some concerns with the generating a positive and consistent user experience.
D/F: Website presents an inconsistent aesthetic with unclear interface and interaction cues that adapt poorly to few user devices and browsers. There are significant concerns with consistency in the user's experience, which makes the experience somewhat negative.