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 temptation to use ChatGPT is well  .....  tempting. Please no submissions using this. It is easy to spot conflated submissions and does not score you any points, in fact it is frowned upon and just may have the opposite effect.

The Submission:

1. 2 copies of each report as described above
   
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 YYForMarkerXX goes to the markers, and should include a page with the names and student numbers of each member in your group.
5. 2nd copy ForGroupXX will be forwarded to the group being evaluated.You are not required to submit personal information of the evaluating group.
   
6. Place everything in an envelope ( or strategically stapled) so things don't get separated and submit to 3P94 assignment box.
   
7. Reread all submission instructions.