brief 3: interaction
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
brief 3: interaction
Assessment Scale01234
N/AIneffectiveProgressingEffectiveHighly Effective
Corresponding Detailed Descriptions
Did not demonstrate, either through absence or serious deficiencies, the described criteria.Struggles to demonstrate practices described in the key grading criteria.Performs within the described key grading criteria. Showing some improvement over time.Consistently demonstrates competency regarding the practices described in the key grading criteria.Consistently innovative, integrated, nuanced, and sophisticated demonstration of elements in the key grading criteria.
Proposals: Did the weekly proposals lead to a clear and comprehensible written document that could give a reader the general sense of what the idea is?No Proposals were turned in.Some, but not all, of the proposals were turned in. In general the project proposal format was not observed from week to week.The project proposals were turned in on time but were vague and did not show any evidence of forward development towards completion of the project.The project proposals were turned in on time and provide a written record of the progression of the project from start to finish. The final version would suffice to convey the overall effect of the project as a pdf.The project proposals show a vivid portrayal of the development of the project. The final version closely resembles an informal one-sheet suitable for an open call for works.
Raspberry Pi: how resolved is the functionality of this prototype? Does it work?No Raspberry Pi usedScripts dont workScript does not autorun on boot but works once launched manually from the terminalScript autoruns and allows for demo with no errorsThe functionality of this project is so seamless that the focus is exclusively on the recorded content and the procedures used therein
Input: Does this project have an input that allows for a user of some sort to interact with it? How successfully is this incorporated into the project? Cause and Effect, Feedback.There is no sensor or input of any sort utilized in this system.There is a sensor, but it does not appear to work/matter how much one interacts with it.There is an input for the project that a user can control or change in some basic manner (a or b, on/off).The input has a satisfying feel to it, allows for deliberate control by the user, a range of possible inputs.The input is challenging to learn, but rewarding to use. Is a new implementation of a pre-existing sensing technique.
User Choice: Does the user have agency in shaping the outcome of this experience? How significant is their choice?The user has no effect on the output of this project (i.e. it is not interactive, simply an automation).The user has a choice that does not appear to result in any significant change without a significant amount of verbal explanation.The user can make a choice and reliably get a particular result and nothing more. Example: toggle button.There is a subtlety and technique to expressing user input. More than two possible states.Each user's experience with the proejct is unique, the experience requires virtually no additional verbal explanation other than, perhaps, discussion.
Outputs: Are there at least two clearly different results possible based on the users choice? How evident is the user input based on the output?There are no outputs (light, sound, motion) in this project. It does not matter whether someone interacts with it or not as there is no effect.One or two outputs that require an extensive amount of explanation to comprehend.There are two distinct outputs. Example: a or b (toggle).There are a range of possible outputs that the user can control with some subtlety.The outputs reflect the overall concept behind the project admirably, requiring little to no explanation outside of the demo/experience. There is a wide range of possible outcomes.
Originality: How unique is the student's idea and its implementation both conceptually and technologically?This project, its software and/or hardware are simply copies from a tutorial, written by someone else, or from another class.The project is original not in its technological implementation but only in its accompanimental verbal description.The project is a good representation of the individual's interests conceptually but is not developed further, technologically, than in-class lab examples.The project represents a unique perspective towards the brief via hardware and software implementation, as well as a satisfying and unique conceptual viewpoint.The project exemplifies the brief while maintaining a unique point of view. The overall experience with the project is unique and memorable.