Criteria

Exceptionally

well executed (10)

Good, with room for improvement (8)

Meets minimum requirement (6)

Pts

Pts

Documentation

Assignment:

Assignment turned in on time and neatly with all sections clearly labeled and stapled together in the correct order.

Assignment up to one day late but otherwise turned in correctly.

Assignment up to 3 days late or turned in incorrectly.

Specification

Problem is clearly defined. Specification is complete and appropriately detailed. A complete IPO chart is supplied.

Problem is defined. Specification is mostly complete, but perhaps not entirely appropriately detailed. An IPO chart is provided

Problem definition is deficient in some way, or specification does not adequately represent the problem.

Top-Down

Design

Top-down design method followed and written in appropriate detail.

Top-down method followed, but level of detail is too vague or too exact.

Top-down design method attempted, but poorly executed.

Test Cases

Clear and well thought out test cases presented that cover all boundary conditions and a comprehensive range of user inputs.

Good test cases, but some boundary conditions are missing. Range of user input mostly well thought out.

Little in the way of test cases. One or more obvious boundary conditions missing.

Source Code

Modularization

&

Generalization

Program broken into well thought out elements that are of an appropriate length, scope and independence. Individual elements are written in a way that actively invites reuse in other projects.

Code elements are generally well planned and executed. Some code is repeated that should be encapsulated. Individual elements are often, but not always, written in a way that invites code reuse.

Code elements exist, but are not well thought out, are used in a somewhat arbitrary fashion, or do not improve program clarity. Elements are seldom written in a way that invites code reuse.

Design,

Structure & Efficiency

Program is designed in a clear and logical manner. Control structures are used correctly. The most appropriate algorithms are implemented.

Program is mostly clear and logical. Control structures are used correctly. Reasonable algorithms are implemented.

Program isn’t as clear or logical as it should be. Control structures are occasionally used incorrectly. Steps that are clearly inefficient are used.

Readability, Consistency & Naming

Coding style guidelines are followed correctly, code is exceptionally easy to read and maintain. All names are consistent with regard to style and are expressive without being verbose.

Coding style guidelines are almost always followed correctly. Code is easy to read. Names are consistent in style and expressive. Isolated cases may be verbose, overly terse or ambiguous.

Coding style guidelines are not followed and/or code is less readable than it should be. Names are nearly always consistent, but occasionally verbose, overly terse, ambiguous or misleading.

Initial Comments

Initial comments are complete. Internal documentation is complete and well suited to the program

Initial comments are complete but internal documentation is in some small fashion inadequate.

Initial comments are incomplete or internal documentation is inadequate.

Coding Comments

Comments clarify meaning where needed.

Comments usually clarity meaning. Unhelpful comments may exist.

Comments exist, but are frequently unhelpful or occasionally misleading.

Execution

User Interface

Screen based instructions and final output are clear, correct and attractive. Program is “user friendly” with informative and consistent prompts and messages.

Screen based instructions and final output are mostly clear, correct and attractive. Program is “user friendly” with informative and consistent prompts and messages.

Screen based instructions and final output are not clear, are not correct or are not attractive. And/or Program is not “user friendly.

Robustness

Program handles erroneous or unexpected input gracefully; action is taken without surprising the user.

All obvious error conditions are checked for and appropriate action is taken.

Some obvious error conditions are checked for and some sort of action is taken.

Testing

Testing is complete without being redundant. All boundary cases are considered and tested.

All key items are tested, but testing may be redundant. Nearly all boundary cases are considered and tested.

Testing was done, but is not sufficiently complete. Most boundary cases are considered and tested.

Correctness

Program correctly solves problem in all cases, exceeds problem specifications, meets language feature requirements and generally makes the instructor think that you’re a really hoopy frood.

Program correctly solves problem in all or nearly all cases, but may have minor problems in some instances. All language feature requirements are used and the program generally makes the instructor think that you know what you’re doing.

Program solves problem in some cases, but has one or more problems. It meets all language feature requirements, but makes the instructor wonder if you really know what’s going on.

Total Points (out of 130s)

Times Weight

Final Score