This page provides details about activities and grading of Sprint 4.
/docs directory is part of your sprint 4 release. Your instructor will evaluate all elements of Final Project Deliverable each contained in separate sections of your Final Design documentation | 5% in final grade | Exceptional Performance 100 points |
Competent Performance 88 points |
Acceptable Performance 75 points |
Developing Performance 50 points |
Unacceptable Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Final Project Deliverable (70% of total) : |
|||||
|
Static Code Analysis 20% (Separate section inside the Final design doc) |
There is a thorough analysis of the metric data for measurements that missed target and outlier values. | There is a thorough analysis of the metric data for measurements that missed target values and some evidence of analyzing beyond that. | The analysis of the metric data covered both missed target and outlier values but could have been in more depth. | There is a minimal analysis of the metric data. | The analysis does not go beyond presenting the measurements. |
| Recommendations for Improvement 15% (Separate section inside the Final design doc) |
Complete recommendations for improvements in multiple areas of the software that are based on the metric data, software architecture design and usability principles and other thorough analysis. | Includes recommendations for improvement in some areas of the software that are based on the metric data and other analysis. | Includes recommendations for improvement that could be better connected to the metric data or a more thorough analysis. | The recommendations for improvement are minimal with only some analysis of the metric data or other analysis. | The recommendations for improvement have little analysis of the metric data or other aspects of the design. |
| Design Principles Analysis 15% (Separate section inside the Final design doc) |
Team properly documents and accurately describes at least FOUR design principles exemplified in their design and explains how and where they will/have materialized in their solution across all tiers in great detail including rationale and recommendations within front and back-end. Diagram(s) are clear and work to support the claims. Team includes prior recommendations and clearly describes improvements from previous submission. |
Team documents and describes at least FOUR design principles exemplified in their design and explains how and where they will/have materialized in their solution across most tiers with some detail including rationale and recommendations within front and back-end. Diagram(s) are clear and work to support the claims. Only a few issues found. Team includes some prior recommendations and identifies some improvements from previous submission. |
Team documents and describes design principles in their design and explains how and where they will/have materialized in their solution across some tiers, with minimal detail on rationale and recommendations within front and back-end. Diagram(s) work to support the claims but consistency is lacking. Team did not head prior recommendations or fails to identify improvements. |
Team documents and describes minimally the principles in their design and fails to explains how or where they will/have materialized in their solution. Diagram(s) lack evidence to support the claims or rationale and recommendations within front and back-end. There are multiple major issues with adherence to architectural separation and OO design principles. |
Description of current or future use of design principles is missing or evident lack of effort with rationale or recommendations within front and back-end. |
| Final design documentation 20% (In addition to above sections) |
Document has been updated, is organized as coherent sections and subsections in a logical sequence and hierarchy with clear transitions and diagrams that follow structure; no notable issues with mechanics. | Document has been updated, is organized as coherent sections and subsections that follow logically in sequence and hierarchy using good diagrams; some issues with mechanics. | Document minimally updated, is mostly organized in a coherent structure follow structure but has notable issues with diagrams; Mechanics may hinder readability in places. | Document has significant issues with aspects of organization, diagrams, structure, or mechanics. | Document has little organization, unreadable diagrams, no coherent structure, and spelling, grammar or other mechanics issues throughout. |
| Final Presentation 20% |
All members participated. Information presented in a logical, interesting sequence which audience can follow. All areas covered at an appropriate level with slides fully supporting speakers with excellent mechanics. | Information presented in a logical, interesting sequence which audience can follow. All areas covered at an appropriate level with slides fully supporting speakers with a few issues with mechanics. | Some of the information seems out of sequence or disconnected. Some information is missing from presentation. The mechanics limited the presentation quality. | Audience has difficulty following presentation because it jumps around, is missing major elements, or had significant issues with mechanics. | The presentation had little organization, was delivered poorly, and provided little information about the design. |
| Team retrospective 10% |
The team provided a thoughtful and descriptive retrospective on its activities indicating areas of strength and for improvement. | The team provided a good retrospective that had a complete description of areas of strength and for improvement. | The team provided a retrospective that could have been more in depth in its indication of strengths and areas for improvement. | The team provided a short retrospective with superficial analysis, indication of strengths, and areas for improvement. | Evidence indicates that the team gave minimal attention to the retrospective activity. |