WEB DESIGN PRINCIPLES - RUBRIC FOR EVALUATING AN EDUCATIONAL WEB SITE created by Lorraine Cross 2004, 8:41 PM 4/20/04

Objectives	Criteria & Points	Criteria & Points	Criteria & Points	Criteria & Points	Comments	Criteria & Points
Content - information	0	1	2	3		Your points
Mission/Vision Site clearly illustrates or maintains the mission/vision of the institution/individual or group	Users cannot identify the mission/vision from the contents of the site.	Users are unable to clearly identify the mission/vision from the contents of the site	Users can clearly assume the mission of the site from the contents.	Users can clearly state the mission/vision of the institution from the contents and can summarize it using key terms from the site	Although unstated, it can be summarized by infomation on the College's web page and Instructor's good use of the little helpers "Ws" & "H"	Select points: 3 points1point2 points0 point
Purpose The main purpose of the site can be easily recognized	Users cannot identify any major function of the site from its contents	Users can assume one major function from the contents of the site	Users can identify one major function from the contents of the site	Users can translate more than one major function of the site from the contents	Little helpers, clearly establish purpose	Select points: 3 points1points2 points0 point
Audience Main users can view/read/identify their status from the contents of the site.	Users are not able to state the audience of the site	Users are able to state 1 possible user of the site	Users are able to state 2 possible users of the site	Users are able to clearly state the main audience of the site	Use of course codes, clearly identifies main audience	Select points: 3 points1points2 points0 points
Top
Information Integrity Users are able to identify the author & credentials to ascertain information integrity	Users cannot identify the author or professional credentials or of the author from the contents of the site.	Users can assume the professional credentials of the author from the contents of the site.	Users can assume the professional credentials of the author from the contents of the site.	Users can clearly identify the name, professional credentials of the author from the contents of the site.	Reflected by link to her biography	Select points: 3 points1points2 points0 point
Maintainance Users are able to state the revision date of the contents of the site.	Users are not able to state the date the site was last revised	Users are able to state the date the site was created	Users are able to state the date the the site was created and revised, site revision is not current.	Users are able to state the date the site was created & revised, site revision is current	No visible dates of creation or revision	Select points: 0 point1points2 points3 points
Objectives	Criteria & Points	Criteria & Points	Criteria & Points	Criteria & Points	Comments	Criteria & Points
Design	0	5	10	15		Your points
Content - "eye appeal" enhances readership & return visits Users can use content & design combinations of a site's best practices e.g. use of color to give meaning, graphics relates to content, technology is seemlessly encorporated and adds to content, visited links are clearly identifiable,users are invited to participate, text formatting has "eye appeal" (enhances readership & return vists) - page layout is consistent, to obtain information with no grammatical errors,easily and quickly	Users can identify no content or design characteristic that promote high readership and encourage return visits.	Users can identify 1-2 content & 1-2 design characteristics that promote high readership and return visits	Users can identify 3-4 content & 3-4 design characteristics that promote high readership and return visits	Users can immediately identify more than 5 content & more than 5 design characteristics from a list of best practices standards which promote high readership and return visits.	Content design promotes readership & return vists. Good use of "white space", good use of color to show change in course level, page & information layout is consistent, good use of audio & visual, but after a while visual becomes blurred, real play freezes (Windows 98)	Select points: 15 point0 point5 points10 points
Interaction Main users can control their site interaction and usability	All main users are frustrated and receive little effective information from links, graphics, color, page layout,navigation, and use of technology in interacting with the sites contents, usability is a catastrophe	All main users receive 1-2 pieces of effective information,and guidance facilitating easy reading, understanding & site interaction,from some links, graphics, use of color, and page layout, and use of technology	All main users receive 3-4 pieces of effective information, and guidance facilitating easy reading, understanding & site interaction,from links, graphics, use of color, page layout, use of technology	All main users receive more than 5 pieces of effective information and guidance, cited in Jakob Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics list, facilitating easy reading, understanding & site interaction, from links, graphics, use of color, page layout, use of technology	a) Link color does not confrom to standard, i.e. blue - visible, visited - purple b) No visible help system c) Few graphics, emphasis on recall rather than recognition - does not cater to all types of users d) No visible error messages for problems which arise e) Link to Wittman's Home page seems to be under construction, an appropriate alt text could indicated this status f) Using a dial-up-connection - was timed out after my 3rd real Play link (recommendation - list length of each)	Select points: 10 points0 points5 points15 points
Top
Accessibility & Usability Users with a disability can easily obtain information by controlling their interaction with the site.	Users with a disability have more than 5 major problems interacting with the site. Usability is a catstrophe, site fails the Bobby test and problems are major, site needs to be re-constructed	Users with a disability have some problems, 3-4, interacting with the contents, site fails the Bobby test, problems are major but can be fixed.	Users with a disability have few problems, 1-2 interacting with the site, site fails the Bobby test but problems are minor and can be fixed.	Users with a disability can employ their skills effectively with no problems when interacting with the site. Site passes the Bobby test.	Site fails to meet requirements of the Bobby test, 11 instances of Priority 1 Accessibility faults, re images/graphics with no alt text, 33 instances of Priority 1 user checks & 28 instances of Priority 2 Accessibility checks. This is a "hard nut to crack" for me but one recommendation would be to provide text versions of all information e.g. convert audio & visual into downlodable text versions. This form cuts across all abilities & disabilitites	Select points: 0 point5 points10 points15 points
Efficiency Users are able to efficiently download site contents.	Users are not informed of computer requirements, accessing the site takes more than 10 sec & experience frustratingly long download times using popular browsers	Users are informed of computer requirements but have difficulty accessing 3-4 links/graphics using popular browsers, download time is more than 10 sec.	Users are informed of computer requirements but have difficulty accessing links using popular browsers, download time is less than 10 sec.	Users are informed of computer requirements and access contents with no difficulty using popular browsers, in less than 10 sec.	Video replays need Real Play and this cannot be installed on a system running Windows 95, (error message received when I tried to download it on a system with Windows 95)it is best on Windows 98 2nd edition or later. In the absence of computer requirements this process can be frustrating to a user. Recommendation - state system requirements on entrance page & syllabus	Select points: 0 point5 points10 points15 points
			Calculate total =	Overall comments:Total points awarded 37, design & content need to consider efficiency, accessibility & usability standards in order to improve the great work done by the Assistant Professor	Total points > click to enter grand total

RATING

66-75 Exemplary, very well designed and easy to use, flawless content

56-65 Very good design, but has few errors with few design flaws

46-55 Complete design, but content quality & design needs improvement

36-45 Incomplete design, with content/design, errors/flaws in areas of low rating

less than 35 Incomplete design, needs reconstruction in all areas