Backup form for peer review of MMI prototype assignments, January-September 2002

Your username (e.g. p0x99)

The username of the author (e.g. p0x99)

1. Robustness - verification of code

• Poor: 45% or less-  broken links, missing content, frames not loading correctly, browser crashing... anything not working properly in the browsers in which it is supposed to, inappropriately slow download time.
• Good: 55% - In a straightforward application everything works except some loading is excessively slow, or one or two small content items don't load.
• Very good: 65% -  In a more complex application, everything works, pages and media load quickly taking account of their complexity.
• Excellent: 75%
  • In a complex application with (for example, one using a range of technologies such as Flash, JavaScript or Java) everything works as expected with no fuss or delay or irritation.
  • Any images and media are well compressed.
  • The lowest spec. system, browser, and appropriate screen settings are made clear.
  • Accessibility rules are followed.
  • Error making is prevented as far as possible and error messages are helpful.

mark (0 to 100 to nearest 5) =

What constructive criticism can you give?

2. Page design - balance, composition, eye movement, use of foreground and background colour and pattern for consistency, emphasis, creativity

• Poor: 45% or less - Screen layouts are inconsistent, difficult to use, distracting the user from the task or the content. Colours are clashing, obscuring content or navigation, or gratuitously irritating.  Probably little or poor use of justification tags, tables or frames for controlling layout.
• Good: 55% - solid screen layouts which are easy to read, mostly consistent colours with patterns and colour schemes not entirely suitable to the content or audience, adequate contrast between foreground and background,  too many colours in places obscure meaning or utility or too few miss opportunities for emphasis. Basic information on purpose, date, location is present on every page (not authorship in this case).
• Very good: 65% - balanced screen layout, where the attention is guided naturally to the important content, consistent colours help usability and structure, good contrast between foreground and background help understand content, pleasing patterns and colour schemes are suitable to the content and audience. Good use of justification tags, tables or frames for controlling layout.
• Excellent: 75% and above - balanced, consistent, pleasing, layouts and colour schemes that help the user navigate and understand the content. Imaginative use of colours and graphics (not content or navigation) to create appropriate atmosphere or mood. Layouts respond well to resizing the browser window and the different resolutions recommended.

mark (0 to 100 to nearest 5) =

What constructive criticism can you give?

3. Site design and content structure

• Poor - 45% or less - inaccurate or inadequate content, with no sources or indications of its currency. Poor structuring with missing material.
• Good 55%
• Very good 65%
• Excellent: 75% and above
  • The site makes clear its purpose, the authorship of the content, its currency and date.
  • Content has a logical and consistent structuring suitable to the topic and the user.
  • The page size and links between pages or sections of pages are appropriate for the content.
  • The content is accurate and sufficient for the purpose, and any missing content is signalled as being under preparation for a later version.
  • Help is available for the novice user.
  • There is support for a mental model of the site.
  • Tasks are simplified.

mark (0 to 100 to nearest 5) =

What constructive criticism can you give?

4. Navigation design

• Poor: 45% or less - the user easily gets lost or cannot find a way of navigating to the desired content.
• Good 55%
• Very good 65%
• Excellent - 75% or more
  • The user always has necessary navigation mechanisms/tools visible or available but they do not dominate the content.
  • Orientation information and navigation tools are consistent in style and positioning.
  • Clear instructions on finding information.
  • Clearly marked exits.
  • Little or no memorizing of navigation information is needed.
  • Navigation choices are easily reversible.
  • Shortcuts to popular information are available for expert users.

mark (0 to 100 to nearest 5) =

What constructive criticism can you give?

5. Text design  - readability

• poor - 45% or less - language is unclear, difficult, ungrammatical, misspelled, badly structured, or without a clear flow. Reading age is too high. Text appears cluttered, white space is too much or too little. Unnecessary scrolling. Fonts, backgrounds, or colours decrease readability.
• Good 55%
• Very good 65%
• excellent - 75% and above
  • The language is clear, grammatical, simple, logical,  free of jargon, consistent, and easy to understand.
  • Style and presentation appropriate to purpose.
  • Page length and scrolling appropriate (no horizontal scrolling).
  • Introductions, titles and subtitles are used to signal structure and flow of ideas.
  • There is sufficient 'white space' around text; text is uncluttered.
  • Any technical words are explained or in an accessible glossary. 
  • Fonts and colours help readability. 
  • Text stands alone when graphics are turned off.
  • Emphasis features enhance the text without being distracting.
  • If font size is scaled by the user text is still readable and structured.

mark (0 to 100 to nearest 5) =

What constructive criticism can you give?

6. Design of graphics and other media - used to enhance presentation or content.

• poor 45% or less - picture quality, size, position,  resolution, colour depth, compression or file type are inappropriate. Any animation, audio or video are gratuitous, not supporting the purpose. They are difficult for the user to control and poor quality.
• Good 55%
• Very good 65%
• excellent - 75% and above
  • Graphics are consistent with the tone, purpose and other content.
  • They are of suitable picture quality, size, position, resolution, colour depth, compression and file type.
  • Any animated graphics have a suitable speed.
  • Alt text is used.
  • Any animation, audio or video is appropriate. The user can control it. Download times and quality are acceptable.
  • Creative use of the web engages the user in appropriate forms of interaction (e.g. quizzes, tutorials, simulations, puzzles, or adventures).

mark (0 to 100 to nearest 5) =

What constructive criticism can you give?

7.  Overall

What general advice for improvement could you give?