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: 4.6 = B+
The design and original research features of this site are exceptional, but defects abound. They might have been remedied with earlier feedback.
| criteria |
June 11 |
| 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 |
5 Top page states purpose clearly and with arresting and aesthetically appealing graphics |
| II. Integration with Cal Poly Land projectÕs purposes and design format |
4 Hopefully this will be done soon. The design modifications are fine but need to be incorporated. Earlier completion or testing, even without pictures, would have facilitated deal with this problem on time. |
| 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 |
4 navigation is smooth and clear, but also makes moving through the site fun. An excellent feature Sequence of topics along ridgeline doesnÕt make sense. ÒSurrounding LandÓ should be first, since it deals with the base on which the human artifact rests. ÒModificationsÓ doesnÕt make sense as a separate topic since the material here seems to belong either to History or to Controversies. |
| 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 |
3.5 Last sentence of Polyhistory1.html makes no sense. Anecdotes here are interesting but all sources need to be documented. The design of the page and the alterations of the figure of the P and the text box are aesthetically pleasing and clever polyControversy1.html needs proofreading. Controversies about the P should be brought up to dateÑboth regarding the vandalism of painting and the litter and erosion problems, which have not been solved Òsurrounding landÓ shows little evidence of actually going to the P and looking at the rocks and vegetation. The pictures dont look like the actual place. Chapparal picture doesnÕt correspond to caption. polyModification1.html needs proofreading and sounds incoherent. WhoÕs the speaker? WhatÕs the source of the quotes. Photographs are too small to read clearly and caption is unreadable or missing |