Comments on Project 1: HTML design
Frank E. Ritter
29 Nov 1997
A papers: cited Preece, Norman, and other writers about users and good design to support users based on the user's characteristics. There were exactly 5, well-defined problems related to the interface, and the problems were valid and well argued. Often suggestions for improvements were given, and some of these suggested fixes were quite good.
B papers: cited just Preece and/or Norman. There were 5 problems, maybe more.
C papers: had at least 5 valid problems, but they were not supported by citations, sometimes they were valid points but points not related to usability of the interface (e.g. redundancy in the html code that users wouldn't see). Often the problem descriptions rambled.
D papers: offered points that were wrong, and/or didn't always contain 5 problems.
A papers: started out by noting potential users and their most likely tasks. A rational of the major features of the design was provided, sometimes with references to other designs or cited material from Preece. Sometimes task analyses were provided to guide the design or a description of the design proces. The papers may have made reference to usability studies, either possible or ones had been done (all of these were informal). The implementations looked like they would work well for real users, and often contained new and interesting features.
B papers: explained the design less well and were generally shorter. Sometimes they were good explanations done in an awkward manner. The designs were less sophisticated, but were clear and worked at least as well as the existing design.
C papers: briefly explained the design. The implementations were straightforward, and may have included errors (like all bold font).
D papers: did not explain the design very well. The implementation was particularly simple, or even incorrect.
Any paper was better where the use of colour or consistency was explained and implemented unusually nicely, the implementation took account of further constraints than what was in the design rational, or there were ideas for the design that I had not thought of nor were the ideas likely to have come from a simple reading of Preece.
Papers that were late were marked down by 5% per day.