Website Grading Criteria

[Catman]

I'm developing a set of grading criteria to use for assessing websites students develop for the web design class I teach, and I'd like your comments and suggestions on what I have so far.

Note: As they stand, the criteria strongly reflect the fact that I am by trade a writing instructor.

Content
Breadth: Does the site cover all the topics promised and/or which visitors expect?
Depth: Does the site provide sufficient, well-developed information?
Relevance: Does the site avoid including information and topics unrelated to its purpose?
Reliability: Does the site demonstrate the competence of the information provider?
Audience: Does the site present the information in a manner appropriate for the intended audience?

Organization
Home Page : Does the home page provide sufficient orientation to the website, particularly in terms in indicating the content?
Arrangement: Do the links reflect a well-designed, logical relationship among the site pages?
Accessibility: Does the site meet WAI Accessibility Standards?
Links: Does the link text/graphics provide sufficient information regarding the destination?
Page Design: Does the individual/site page design provide sufficent cues to help visitors locate important information?

Language
Tone: Does the wording of the text reflect an appropriate attitude toward visitors?
Conciseness: Does every word contribute to the meaning?
Clarity: Does the text convey information in a simple, straightfoward manner?
Word Choice: Does the site use the right word for the intended meaning?
Sentence Structure: Does the site use appropriate standard grammar?

Each criterion receives from 0 to 4 points. On the theory that no website can be stronger than the weakest aspects, the lowest five are then counted twice again and added to total, making for a possible 100 points.

[oracleguy]

Well, what about proper coding techniques? Like does the code follow the W3C standards for the DTD that is in use on the site. Of course if they are just making it in a WYSIWYG you can't really grade them on it.

[joh6nn]

i think the criteria you've set up here pretty much cover it, though personally, i would add more weight to the organization section; i'm a stickler for ease of use and accessibility. i just wish my site reflected that.

[Catman]

Originally posted by oracleguy
Well, what about proper coding techniques? Like does the code follow the W3C standards for the DTD that is in use on the site. Of course if they are just making it in a WYSIWYG you can't really grade them on it. Good point: The sites must pass XHTML 1.1 and CSS validation before I'll accept them for grading. And I'm forcing them to use text editors -- those who've used WSYIWYG editors tend to have more trouble figuring out style sheets.

[Catman]

Originally posted by joh6nn
i think the criteria you've set up here pretty much cover it, though personally, i would add more weight to the organization section; i'm a stickler for ease of use and accessibility. i just wish my site reflected that. Another good point: Poor organization will result in a lower grade. For example, if someone has superb content and superb writing but awful organization, the grade could look like this:

Content: 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 => 20/20
Organization: 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +1 => 5/20
Language: 4 + 4 + 4 +4 + 4 => 20/20
Weak: 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 => 5/20

Total : 20 + 5 + 20 + 5 + 5 => 55/100

This translates into a C with the current grading scale -- in other words, superior content development and superior lanuage skills cannot lift a poorly organized site from mediocrity.