Design Document Regrade

Team: Yes, No, Maybe So ...

Grade: (88 out of 100)

The following is a breakdown of the grading.

Document presentation (5 out of 5)

Important points:

Organization: OK
Document author: OK
use of English: better

Project Description of Target System (5 out of 5)

Link to other documents? yes

Comments:

High-level architecture (23 out of 30)

static description (box-and-line type diagram, or suitable substitute):
dynamic description (Can I tell how the system executes over time?):
use of standard or understandable notations:
completeness:

Comments: I see very little evidence that you addressed the criticisms made last time. Still ambiguous with respect to use of arrows in diagram. The diagram is still difficult to read (you made it slightly bigger. You still are being too naive about the serial interface. You did correct the duplicate "Interface" labels in the diagram.

Design specification (25 out of 30)

module/class definitions (identified, interfaces provided): Methods defined, but still no internal state/attributes defined for the various classes. This is not a standard class template for OO design.
following a prescribed method (mainly for OO people): Still no evidence of how you designed your system. You do point to the DB design in the prototype document, but that's it.
use of standard or understandable notations: Not really standard, but I can understand it.
completeness:

Comments:

User Interface (30 out of 30)

where relevant, is the human interface well-defined? OK
evidence of UI design (screens, drawings, etc.) OK

Comments: