A total of 100 points are possible, but don't expect to get anywhere the total possible points --- the point guidelines include a lot of "headroom" for exceptional projects, with typical scores being 50-75% of the maximum in each category.
50 - Functionality |
||
Robustness: 15 points |
||
|
15 = absolutely bulletproof |
||
|
12 = robust under reasonable use |
||
|
8 = minor bugs, works well enough to be usable |
||
|
4 = major bugs interfere with normal use |
||
|
0 = doesn't run |
||
Feature Set: 15 pts |
||
|
15 = WOW! Exceptional. |
||
|
11 = All needed features and some pleasant surprises |
||
|
6 = Adequate for the intended purpose |
||
|
2 = Missing features interfere with normal use |
||
Ease of setup: 10 pts |
||
|
10 = a snap to install - on a par with highly automated installers |
||
|
8 = easy to install |
||
|
5 = a little cumbersome, but installed without major problems |
||
|
3 = major difficulties installing |
||
|
0 = couldn't install |
||
Ease of use: 10 pts |
||
|
10 = couldn't ask for more |
||
|
8 = Quite usable, but could be improved |
||
|
5 = Adequate usability, won't discourage normal use |
||
|
3 = Usability problems interfere with normal use |
||
|
0 = Completely unusable |
||
20 - Final SRS, SDS, and Project Plan |
||
Final Project Plan - 5 pts |
||
|
5 = Report clearly indicates who did what, when they did it. There is a record of when meetings were held, who attended, the agenda, and what was accomplished and agreed upon at each meeting. A series of updated project plans continues to show all of the major project milestones and deliverables. |
||
|
3 = A plan was in place and followed. Tasks and roles were assigned, but it is not perfectly clear who did what, when they did it, and how long everyone spent on each task (from assigned date to completed date, as well as time on task). |
||
|
0 = No final updated report of the project management is provided. |
||
Final SRS and SDS - 15 pts |
||
|
This document should include an updated SRS and SDS, as
well as additional detailed technical documentation that
would be required to fully understand, modify, and extend
the system. YOU MUST SUBMIT YOUR ORIGINAL, GRADED AND
MARKED-UP SRS, SDS, and Project Plan WITH YOUR FINAL
PROJECT. |
||
|
15 = Exceptionally complete and useful design
documentation; with a small amount of study I could easily
port, extend, or modify the system. The system is organized
in a way that makes it exceptionally easy to extend or
modify, and each part of the system is specified precisely
enough that it could be modified or replaced without
studying other parts of the system. Anticipated changes
(e.g., features or generalizations that did not make it into
this version) are documented. The SRS has been updated to
reflect how the requirements have evolved, and the SDS has
been updated to reflect the updated SRS. The SDS matches
what was actually built and turned in. All source code is
well-commented. |
||
|
10 = Good design documentation, adequate for maintaining and extending the system. Most changes that might be anticipated would be easy, and the documentation of each part of the system is adequate. Some changes may not be quite as localized as one would like, but non-localized changes are reasonably simple, and the documentation is adequate to determine what must be changed. Documentation includes some anticipated changes for future versions of the system. 7 = Adequate design documentation, with some things that could be improved. Some changes may be more difficult to make than they should be. 5 = Some major problems in design documentation, or some things that should be localized or easily configurable are inapropriately hard-wired in the application. 0 = Technical documentation is inadequate, to the point that the only practical way to determine how to make a change is to read the source code. |
||
15 - Documentation |
||
README.txt: 5 pts |
||
|
This should be a text file, submitted with the source
code, explaining what are the files being submitted, who are
the authors, the class name and assignment, and what needs
to be done to both compile the source code and run the
program. The file should still work a year from now, in case
a future 422/522 instructor is given a directory containing
these files. The file should list the version of the
compiler and any other software that was used, and any
additional setup that may be required. |
||
|
5 = complete overview with overview description and complete manifest including guide to other documents |
||
|
4 = very good README |
||
|
3 = adequate README, but either some inappropriate choices of what to put in or leave out |
||
|
minor organizational problems that make it less useful than it would otherwise be |
||
|
2 = README exists, but has flaws that limit its usefulness |
||
|
0 = README doesn't exist or is useless |
||
Documentation - installation, tutorial, reference: 10 pts |
||
|
This should include everything a user needs to install and use the system. |
||
|
10 = really professional standards, on a par with the best commercial software |
||
|
8 = Good solid documentation for both tutorial and reference use; not quite |
||
|
professional standards, but very good for a short project |
||
|
6 = adequate user documents for both tutorial and reference use |
||
|
4 = not very useful, due to flaws, omissions, or poor organization |
||
|
2 = barely useful at all |
||
|
0 = no user documentation, or useless documentation |
||
15 - Initial SRS / SDS / Project Plan |
||
|
This was the first deliverable for the project. |
||
A.Hornof, 10/4/04. Adapted from materials created by Michal Young, Spring 2000.