The final version of your project plan will need to be submitted on Canvas as a PDF document, with a link to the video demo.
To increase honesty and accountability, you are asked to provide reviews of each other's reports. For all the members of your team, you will need to check if their system architecture is correct, check whether their list of features is correct, and check whether they indicated the list of features they completed accurately. This will give us a rough within-team validation of the work that everyone has done.
Total marks possible: 25 points.
| Criteria | Meets/Exceeds Expectations | Below Expectations | No Submission |
|---|---|---|---|
| Report: Overview Description Does the description include a high-level overview about the specific approach taken in this project? |
[1 pt] A clearly written overview highlighting the uniqueness of the project is provided. The intended users are identified. Meaningful use cases that explain how these users use the system and the intended outcomes are provided. |
[0 pt] Description is missing, details are missing, not accurate, or not clear. |
[0 pt] Description is missing, details are missing, not accurate, or not clear. |
| Report: System Architecture What are the major components of your system design? |
[5 pts] A DFD system architecture diagram and a clear explanation of the components are provided to illustrate the design of the system and how information flows from one component to another. The chosen system design is appropriate for the project. Identify the tech stack used because that will help contextualize the choice of the system architecture as well. |
[2 pts] The DFD has mistakes or is wrong. The explanation is not clear or information is missing. The chosen system design is inappropriate for the project. |
[0 pt] No submission. |
| Report: System Features Which features are complete and working? |
[4 pts] A complete list of features is included to describe the system. (This part can be worked on as a team since you need to divide features up in a way that only one person worked on each feature in the list.) Includes an accurate enumeration of the features that are buggy and what is not working about them. The scope of the project accomplished is high relative to the other projects. |
[2 pts] The features are incomplete. The features are missing some details. The scope of the project accomplished is medium relative to the other projects. |
[0 pt] The features are incomplete and/or not clear and/or not submitted. The scope of the project accomplished is low relative to the other projects. |
| Report: Features You Individually Completed How much of the project did you work on? |
[4 pts] An annotation of the full feature list to clearly indicate which features you have worked on. (For example, put an asterisk beside the feature you did so you don't re-type all your features again.) The features are written with enough details for a technical person to understand how much work goes into building them. The portion of features you worked on represents roughly 1/N'th of the work involved in the project with respect to both quantity and complexity, where N is the number of members in your team. |
[2 pts] Annotated features are indicated clearly to show what you worked on. The portion of features you worked on represents noticeably less than a member's share of the project. |
[0 pt] The portion of features you worked on represents significantly less than a member's share of the project. Alternatively, the features identified to be yours is inaccurately represented and more than what you have done as seen on the repo. Annotated features is missing. |
| Report: Installation and Setup Steps How should someone else install and run your project to test it or to continue development with it? |
[3 pts] A clear set of steps are provided to install your project on our local to get it to run successfully. If there are specific environment settings, versions, or IDE requirements we need to know about, state those clearly. Note: Do not copy text from the README of your repo because if multiple students do that, you will all have identical writing and your reports will be flagged for plagarism. If you want us to follow the README, just reference it and give us the link in the report. |
[1 pt] Some of the steps are not detailed enough or are incorrect. |
[0 pt] Most of the steps do not work or the information is missing altogether. |
| Video: Overall Quality How good was the video demo overall? |
[1 pt] The video presents the system clearly and the content is easy to follow. The speech is clear and easy to understand. The video is not over 10 minutes. |
[0 pt] The video quality is not clear and/or it is over the time limit. |
[0 pt] The video quality is not clear and/or it is over the time limit. |
| Video: Content Did the video showcase all the required information? |
[2 pts] The video includes all the required information clearly. |
[1 pt] Some information is missing. |
[0 pt] Most of the required information is missing, video link is missing, or video is not submitted. |
| Peer Evaluation - Teammate Reports: Completeness Did the student evaluate the reports from all the teammates? |
[2 pts] All the teammates were evaluated. |
[1 pt] Some evaluations are missing. |
[0 pt] Most or all of the evaluations are missing. |
| Peer Evaluation - Teammate Reports: Accuracy Did the student provide an honest and accurrate assessment of the reports? |
[3 pts] All the evaluations are accurate and consistent with the work observed throughout the year. |
[1 pt] Some information is missing or is not accurate based on the work observed throughout the year. |
[0 pt] Most of the information is missing or is not accurate based on the work observed throughout the year. |