Introduction:

You have now completed Stage 2. What's next? Design and implementation of any application may under go multiple iterations, to ensure that the functional and usability aspects of the system are met. Stage 2 is your first crack at the design. The marker will evaluate the design on a set of technical criteria, which will be very useful. But it would also help to have third parties evaluate your design as well.

Goals of the Assignment:

This assignment will allow the members of the class to perform peer reviews of the Stage 2 projects. As a result, each group will be able to see what other groups have designed and implemented. Each group will then be charged with writing a critique which focuses on the technical aspects of the projects from an interface perspective. 

The Assignment:

You will be given 2 projects which represent the Stage 2 work of 2 randomly chosen groups. You will be required to evaluate each project. Write a detailed critique which outlines:

• Interaction Problems
• Logic Problems (Logical use problems)
• Design Principle miscues.
• Usability issues.
• Suggestions for improvement
  

In most cases a group's project will have many good qualities as well. Be sure to point out those things which were done correctly. Or in general which you found to be novel. If a group decided to go out on a limb and try something new, keep an open mind. Experimentation with design is a good thing.

Most critiques will be between 5-8 pages.

Finally: Note the following requirements.

• If you were to award a mark to the project on a scale of 1-10. How would you rate it? Why?
  
• Comparing the project to your own. Is it better, worse, or about the same in calibre?
  

Marking Scheme:

The marking scheme for this stage will be based on your in-depth analysis of the projects you were given to evaluate. Your evaluation will not affect the mark of the group you are evaluating. Your mark is not based on whether the projects you evaluate are good or bad. Your mark will be based on the objective expert evaluation, written in a format presentable to the marker(s), and the project's owners. If the marker or project owner's read your critique, will they be able to correct the problems? This means that your criticism must be substantiated or followed by corrective actions.

The Submission:

1. 2 copies of each report
2. Rating on the reports (scale 1-10 on your perceived project quality)
3. Statement indicating your how your project would rate against the project being evaluated.
   
4. 1st copy goes to the markers.
1. Have a standard group departmental coverpage securely stabled to this copy.
   
2. Clear indication who was evaluated must be on cover page. (include that groups number).
   
5. 2nd copy will be forwarded to the group being evaluated.
1. Name and student number of evaluating group is optional.
2. Clear indication who was evaluated must be on cover page of second copy (group number).
3. If you were given a CD,  USB  Key or other hardware, then please return it with the critique.
   
6. Place everything in an envelope with yet another group coverpage. I will separate the various reports into appropriate pile(s) for return to the groups.