Gates
| cla.calpoly.edu/polyland/topics/technology/Hum330a/ |
Scoring: 5=excellent; 4=good; 3=adequate; 2=inadequate 1=absent
Each of the four criteria below is worth 1/4 of the grade for this project, which counts for 40% of the class grade. Scores can be improved by additional work on the sites before the time scheduled for the Final Exam.
Final Score: 2.9 = C-
This project has been jinxed by a defect in the template and by technical problems that partially are due to my inability to provide clear diagnoses until the end and partly by your problems in following the written directions. Your ideas and aspirations for the site were very promising, but understandably frustration with being unable to mount your material as you proceeded distracted you from assembling more. The interview with Gary Ketcham produced the most useful results. I believe you learned a lot about making web pages through this ordeal and hope that youÕll be able to put those skills to work in future projects. Because of the extenuating circumstances, this grade will not lower whatever grade you get on your personal journals.
| criteria |
June 9 |
| I. Thesis or purpose of your siteÑ What do want your audience to learn? a. Statement of purpose, either explicit on the top page, or implicit but easy for user to determine, see for example, http://polyland.lib.calpoly.edu/overview/ThisProject/index.html b. Everything on the site supports this purpose. c.Items irrelevant to the thesis or purpose d.Value and validity of this purpose |
2.8 The poem on the top page, with its two different fonts, is a confusing start and doesnÕt seem relevant to the purpose. The introductory personal comment provides a nice lead-in to the subject. The three subheadings donÕt clearly define their topics or relate well to the introductory prose. |
| II. Integration with Cal Poly Land projectÕs purposes and design format |
2.8 The map supposedly linked to the top page has disappeared. Locating at least some of the gates and photographing more of them and looking at each in its setting both for function and aesthetics and for they way the pedestrian encounters them would have helped. Gates are complained about by Mountain bikers as obstacles, and are sometimes left ofen causing serious consequences for ag, and go into disrepair for various reasons including people climbing over them, and are provided with locks that only some people have the keys to. All these are areas of subject matter that could have been further pursued, among many others. The change of font and color styles seems like an experiment, but I see no advantage or justification for in the context of the whole CPL site |
| III. Extent and Navigation properties a. Is there enough material to require 5 to 8 minutes for the user to navigate through the site and absorb what it has to offer. b. Are there clear , consistent, logical and interesting ways to navigate through the site, for example ÒExplore Cal Poly Land by place or theme or collection using the navigation bar to the left of every page. Each of the links there leads to further subdivisionsÓ |
3 Navigation is clear and simple. Content as also indicated above is abbreviated. |
| IV. Quality of Material Presented a. TextÑclarity, sufficiency, conciseness, elegance, accuracy, including documentation b. Images or multimedia elements c. Integrations of text and imagesÑtheir relevance and mutual illumination |
3 Factual material about number, cost and production of gates is very useful. Interviews with Rutherford and Ketcham yeild good information, but there could have been more. Treatment of the Poly Canyon controversy is incomplete. There are very few pictures and they are not captioned. |