Semester Project Grading Rubric
MIS 2201 - Detailed Assessment Criteria
Comprehensive Evaluation Standards
Rubric Overview
This detailed rubric provides specific criteria and expectations for each component of the semester project. Use this as a reference while building your website to ensure you meet all requirements and achieve the highest possible grade.
Phase 1: Personal Website & Online Resume (100 points)
Technical Implementation (45 points)
| Criteria | Excellent (90-100%) | Good (80-89%) | Satisfactory (70-79%) | Needs Improvement (<70%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HTML Structure (12 points) | Perfect semantic HTML5 structure, all required pages, proper document structure, valid markup, excellent accessibility | Good semantic structure, all pages present, minor markup issues, good accessibility | Basic structure present, most pages complete, some markup errors, basic accessibility | Poor structure, missing pages, significant markup errors, accessibility issues |
| CSS Styling (18 points) | Professional external stylesheet, excellent responsive design, consistent theme, advanced CSS techniques | Good external stylesheet, responsive design works well, consistent styling, good CSS practices | Basic external stylesheet, some responsive elements, mostly consistent, basic CSS | Poor or inline styling, not responsive, inconsistent appearance, CSS errors |
| JavaScript Functionality (10 points) | Multiple interactive features, form validation, smooth animations, clean code, excellent user experience | Good interactive features, basic validation, some animations, well-organized code | Basic interactivity, simple validation, minimal animations, functional code | Little to no JavaScript, broken functionality, poor code quality |
| Code Quality & Organization (5 points) | Excellent file organization, well-commented code, consistent naming, follows best practices | Good organization, adequate comments, mostly consistent naming | Basic organization, some comments, generally readable code | Poor organization, no comments, inconsistent or confusing code structure |
Required Pages Content (35 points)
| Criteria | Excellent (90-100%) | Good (80-89%) | Satisfactory (70-79%) | Needs Improvement (<70%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home Page (8 points) | Professional headshot, compelling hobby summaries (2), high-quality welcome video, excellent personal introduction | Good professional photo, adequate hobby summaries, good welcome video, clear introduction | Acceptable photo, basic hobby summaries, adequate video, minimal introduction | Poor/missing photo, weak summaries, poor/missing video, unclear introduction |
| Hobbies Page (7 points) | Detailed, engaging descriptions, 3+ high-quality images, personal stories, shows personality and passion | Good descriptions, 3 quality images, some personal details, interesting content | Basic descriptions, 2-3 images, minimal personal details, adequate content | Poor descriptions, few/low-quality images, no personal connection, boring content |
| Discover Page (UMD & Duluth) (7 points) | Compelling UMD choice explanation, detailed Duluth attractions, excellent 30+ second UMD marketing video | Good UMD explanation, adequate Duluth content, good marketing video (30+ seconds) | Basic UMD explanation, minimal Duluth content, adequate video (meets time requirement) | Poor/missing explanations, no Duluth content, poor/missing/short video |
| Resume Page (8 points) | Complete web-formatted resume, downloadable PDF, excellent presentation, all sections present | Good web resume, PDF available, good format, most sections complete | Basic web resume, PDF present, adequate format, some sections missing | Incomplete resume, no PDF, poor presentation, major sections missing |
| Interactive Game Page (5 points) | Fully functional interactive game, excellent user experience, creative design, team collaboration evident | Good interactive game, works well, decent design, clear team effort | Basic interactive game, mostly functional, simple design, adequate team work | Poor/broken game, limited interactivity, poor design, minimal team collaboration |
Design & User Experience (20 points)
| Criteria | Excellent (90-100%) | Good (80-89%) | Satisfactory (70-79%) | Needs Improvement (<70%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual Appeal (8 points) | Outstanding visual design, professional color scheme, excellent typography, visually stunning | Good visual design, appropriate colors, good typography, attractive appearance | Basic visual design, acceptable colors, adequate typography, clean appearance | Poor visual design, clashing colors, poor typography, unprofessional appearance |
| Navigation & Usability (7 points) | Intuitive navigation, excellent user flow, all links work, easy to find information | Good navigation, clear user flow, links work, information accessible | Basic navigation, adequate flow, most links work, information findable | Confusing navigation, poor flow, broken links, hard to find information |
| Mobile Responsiveness (5 points) | Perfect mobile experience, excellent responsive design, works on all devices | Good mobile experience, responsive design works well, minor issues | Basic mobile functionality, some responsive elements, usable on mobile | Poor mobile experience, not responsive, difficult to use on mobile |
Phase 2: Team Business Website Project (50 points)
Technical Implementation (20 points - 40%)
| Criteria | Excellent (90-100%) | Good (80-89%) | Satisfactory (70-79%) | Needs Improvement (<70%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Professional Functionality (10 points) | All features work flawlessly, professional-grade functionality, excellent user experience, ready for business use | Most features work well, good functionality, minor issues, business-ready with small fixes | Basic functionality works, some features incomplete, adequate for demonstration | Many features broken, poor functionality, not suitable for business use |
| Performance & Optimization (6 points) | Excellent load times, optimized images, efficient code, fast performance across devices | Good performance, mostly optimized, reasonable load times | Acceptable performance, some optimization, adequate load times | Poor performance, no optimization, slow load times |
| Cross-Browser Compatibility (4 points) | Works perfectly in all major browsers, consistent appearance and functionality | Works well in most browsers, minor differences, good compatibility | Works in major browsers, some compatibility issues, functional overall | Poor browser compatibility, significant issues, limited functionality |
Business Focus & Content (15 points - 30%)
| Criteria | Excellent (90-100%) | Good (80-89%) | Satisfactory (70-79%) | Needs Improvement (<70%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Business Content Quality (8 points) | Excellent business content, compelling copy, professional tone, clear value proposition | Good business content, professional writing, clear messaging, good value proposition | Adequate business content, acceptable writing, basic messaging, some value shown | Poor business content, unprofessional writing, unclear messaging, no clear value |
| Client Requirements Fulfillment (7 points) | Exceeds client expectations, all requirements met and enhanced, client extremely satisfied | Meets all client requirements, good execution, client satisfied with results | Meets most client requirements, adequate execution, client generally satisfied | Fails to meet many requirements, poor execution, client dissatisfied |
Team Collaboration (15 points - 30%)
| Criteria | Excellent (90-100%) | Good (80-89%) | Satisfactory (70-79%) | Needs Improvement (<70%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teamwork & Communication (8 points) | Excellent teamwork, clear communication, effective collaboration, equal participation | Good teamwork, adequate communication, good collaboration, mostly equal participation | Basic teamwork, some communication issues, adequate collaboration, uneven participation | Poor teamwork, communication problems, little collaboration, very uneven participation |
| Project Coordination (7 points) | Excellent project management, clear roles, efficient workflow, on-time delivery | Good project management, defined roles, good workflow, mostly on time | Basic project management, some role confusion, adequate workflow, some delays | Poor project management, unclear roles, chaotic workflow, significant delays |