UK5521
**Submission 2 Rubric - Low-Fidelity Prototyping Report (25%, Individual Submission)**
**Criteria**
**Fail**
**Pass**
**Credit**
**Distinction**
**High Distinction**
**Outstanding Distinction**
**Less than 50%**
**50–59%**
**60–69%**
**70–79%**
**80–89%**
**90–100%**
**Storyboards: 30%**
The narrative of the storyboards is unclear / storyboard is not connected to the user story or persona / storyboard is too short (less than 3 frames) or there is less than two storyboards. Accessibility is not addressed in any storyboard, or the persona is portrayed with a disability/impairment that doesn’t impact the user's interaction with the app/interface.
The narrative of the storyboards is somewhat unclear, and the connection to the user story or persona is vague. There are two storyboards, and a persona is shown with accessibility needs/impairments that may affect their interaction with the interface, but the storyboard does not effectively show this happening.
The storyboard narrative is clear, and the connection to the user story/persona is present. Two storyboards are included, but both focus on very similar user stories/personas. Accessibility needs/impairments are addressed superficially.
The storyboard narrative is clear, and the connection to the user story/persona is apparent. Two storyboards that consider different user stories/personas are included. Accessibility needs/impairments of the persona are addressed with a reasonable degree of thought.
The storyboard narrative is clear and strongly linked to the user story/persona. Two storyboards are presented, with significant variation between the types of users and their needs. A storyboard addresses accessibility needs/impairments and how these impact the persona's interaction with the app in a meaningful way.
The storyboard narrative is clear and deeply connected to the user story/persona. Two storyboards meaningfully depict diverse users and their needs, and accessibility/impairments are thoroughly addressed, showing how they affect interaction with the app in a significant manner.
**Storyboards - Descriptions and Presentation**
Descriptions do not align with the storyboard visuals. Storyboards are incomprehensible or untidy, and visuals are not true storyboard depictions (e.g., just UI designs). There is no consideration of user emotions or thought processes.
Mostly, descriptions focus on the actions or interface with little attention to user emotions or thought processes. Storyboards are disorganized or messy.
Storyboards are divided between user/environment-focused and UI designs. While comprehensible, parts are difficult to interpret or lack sufficient description. The visual presentation could be neater.
Storyboards primarily focus on the user’s emotions/thought processes rather than the device screens. The storyboards are understandable and neatly presented, with text descriptions providing additional context.
Text descriptions are clear and consider the user’s emotions, thoughts, and environment. The storyboards are well-drawn and easy to interpret.
Meaningful and clear text descriptions are provided, with strong consideration of the user's emotions, thoughts, and environment. Storyboards are professionally drawn and easy to interpret.
**Low-Fidelity Prototypes: 40%**
**Acceptance Criteria**
Some user stories lack acceptance criteria or the criteria are vague and unclear. There is no organization of the acceptance criteria, and an attempt to organize them has been done incorrectly.
Acceptance criteria for some user stories are vague. An effort has been made to organize the acceptance criteria, but there are several issues.
Each user story has acceptance criteria, but they are incomplete or unclear. A Kanban board has been used but with some minor issues.
Each user story provides acceptance criteria that are mostly complete and clear. A Kanban board is used effectively with few issues.
Each user story provides well-defined and complete acceptance criteria, organized effectively using a Kanban board. Both accessibility and general usability are considered.
Each user story provides clear and complete acceptance criteria, organized professionally using a Kanban board. Accessibility and usability considerations are integrated effectively.
**Low-Fidelity Prototype - Link to Requirements**
Screens are not connected to user stories or requirements.
Screens are vaguely connected to user stories or requirements.
Screens address one or two user stories/requirements but include unnecessary or unrelated elements or low-priority functions.
Screens address several user stories and requirements with a few unnecessary elements or low-priority functions.
Screens address a good range of user stories and requirements with minimal unnecessary elements.
Screens address a wide range of user stories and requirements with no unnecessary elements.
**Low-Fidelity Prototype - Design**
The prototype is extremely rough, with unclear layout/functions and numerous usability issues. The design does not represent a low-fidelity prototype.
The prototype is somewhat complete but inconsistent and difficult to read, with significant usability issues.
The prototype is mostly legible with an attempt to represent UI elements, but there are some inconsistencies and minor usability violations.
The prototype is legible, mostly consistent, and represents UI elements, with minor usability issues. It generally adheres to usability principles.
The prototype is clearly designed, consistent in UI, and follows usability principles. The app’s function and layout are obvious.
The prototype is professionally designed, adheres to usability principles, and displays clear, consistent UI elements. The app’s function and layout are intuitive.
**Low-Fidelity Prototype - Accessibility**
Design aspects violate accessibility guidelines, or accessibility considerations are shallow (e.g., only a button for font size changes without considering other accessibility factors).
Accessibility is minimally considered or only addressed for one type of impairment.
Screens adequately address accessibility, considering more than one impairment but only at a basic level.
Prototype considers a range of accessibility needs and impairments.
The prototype considers a wide variety of accessibility needs and impairments with thoughtful design.
The prototype thoroughly considers and implements accessibility features for a diverse range of users, with detailed attention to usability and inclusion.
**Low-Fidelity Prototype - Annotations**
No or few annotations are provided, or only interface element labels are present without references to theories such as Norman’s principles or accessibility guidelines.
Some annotations are provided but with few references to theories like Norman’s principles or accessibility.
Annotations of Norman's principles and WCAG guidelines are present, but they are sometimes incorrectly applied.
Annotations are included and mostly applied correctly for both Norman’s principles and WCAG guidelines.
Annotations are accurate, with clear applications of Norman’s principles and WCAG guidelines.
Annotations are comprehensive and accurate, showing meaningful use of both Norman’s principles and WCAG guidelines.
**Written Report: 30%**
**Design Choices**
The report repeats previous content with no new insights.
The report offers limited justification for design choices and only vague connections to user stories or requirements.
The report provides some justification for design choices with a reasonable connection to user stories or requirements.
The report offers strong justification for design choices, connecting well to user stories and requirements.
The report provides well-reasoned justification for design decisions, connected to user stories, requirements, and acceptance criteria with thoughtful reflection.
The report offers detailed, insightful justifications for design decisions, thoroughly linked to user stories, requirements, and acceptance criteria, with deep reflections.
**Theories and Norman’s Principles**
Norman's principles are either missing or incorrectly applied. Fewer than three principles are mentioned.
Three Norman’s principles are mentioned, but some applications are vague or incorrect.
Three Norman’s principles are mentioned and mostly applied correctly with a reasonable variety.
Three Norman’s principles are clearly mentioned and correctly applied.
Three Norman’s principles are meaningfully and correctly applied throughout the report.
Three Norman’s principles are applied meaningfully and seamlessly throughout, with thoughtful discussion and accuracy.
**Accessibility**
There is no explanation or application of accessibility in the prototypes. Fewer than three accessibility principles have been discussed.
Three accessibility principles/WCAGs are mentioned, but explanations are superficial.
Three accessibility principles/WCAGs are discussed and applied adequately, focusing on two types of accessibility.
Three accessibility principles/WCAGs are well-discussed and mostly correctly applied.
Three accessibility principles/WCAGs are discussed in detail and applied correctly, addressing multiple types of accessibility.
Three accessibility principles/WCAGs are thoroughly discussed, correctly applied, and spread across multiple screens.
**Written Quality and Visual Quality**
The writing is poor, with incorrect vocabulary and frequent grammatical errors. Visual presentation is inconsistent, and little effort has been made to improve the document’s structure.
The writing is acceptable but contains numerous grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. The document is mostly consistent, though plain.
The writing is reasonable, with some grammatical errors. The document is visually consistent, but minor issues remain.
The writing is good, with only a few grammatical issues. The document is mostly well-structured and visually cohesive.
The writing is high-quality, with clear structure and very few grammatical issues. The document is well-presented with consistent design.
The writing is professional and error-free, with a clear flow of ideas. The document’s visual design is highly polished and consistent throughout.