Here are the grading standards I used for project 2 in Spring 1998. I will make minor adjustments to these to form the grading standards for Project 1 of Winter 1999.

 

Points

40 - Functionality
	Robustness: 15
		* 15 = absolutely bulletproof
		* 12 = robust under reasonable use
		* 8 = minor bugs, works well enough to be usable
		* 4 = major bugs interfere with normal use
	Feature Set: 10
		* 10 = WOW! Exceptional
		* 7 = All needed features and some pleasant surprises
		* 5 = Adequate for the intended purpose
		* 2 = Missing features interfere with normal use
	Ease of setup: 5
		* 5 = a snap to install - on a par with highly automated installers
		* 3 = easy to install
		* 2 = a little cumbersome, but installed without major problems
		* 1 = major difficulties installing
		* 0 = couldn't install
	Ease of use: 15
		* 15 = couldn't ask for more
		* 12 = Quite usable, but could still be improved
		* 8 = Adequate usability, won't discourage normal use
		* 4 = Usability problems interfere with normal use
		* 0 = Completely unusable
30 - External/User Documentation
	README (README.txt or equivalent OBVIOUS orientation document): 7 pts
		7 = complete overview with overview description and complete
		manifest including guide to other documents
		5 = 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
	Installation/setup docs (complete? easy to follow?): 5 pts
		5 = Excellent docs for both common and uncommon cases
		3 = Adequate installation documentation, but could be improved
		(e.g., for less common cases)
		1 = Major flaws or omissions in installation documentation
		0 = Missing or completely misleading installation documentation
	User docs - tutorial/reference: 18 points
		18 = really professional standards, on a par with the best commercial software
		15 = Good solid documentation for both tutorial and reference use; not quite
		professional standards, but very good for a short project
		9 = adequate user documents for both tutorial and reference use
		6 = not very useful, due to flaws, omissions, or poor organization
		3 = barely useful at all
		0 = no user documentation, or useless documentation
20 - Internal/Technical Documentation: pts total Color
	Architecture/design overview document - 5 pts
		5 = Excellent overview with clear breakdown of system into major parts clear description of criteria for breaking into subsystems (e.g., it would be obvious where code for a new feature should go) abstract understanding of program behavior
		3 = Adequate overview, good first step indicating where to look for
		0 = No overview, or useless overview
	Technical documentation as a whole - 15 pts (may include external and internal documentation, Javadoc, etc.)
		15 = Exceptionally complete and useful design documentation; with a small amount of study I could easily port, extend, or modify the system