Criteria Criteria Weight Not Attempted Needs Improvement Satisfactory Good Very Good Exemplary Presentation Component (60%) GLO1 GLO3 Information, design, and interaction elements, Persona Objectives 50% Very few Topic areas were addressed in detail. Visualisation elements are poorly selected or do NOT provide insights for decision making. No logic behind use of colour is presented. Concept of Hierarchy is ignored in visualisation and interactive elements are missing. (0 – 14.9 marks) Only some Topic areas were addressed or most were incomplete and lack clarity. Visualisation does not provide insights into decision making for the proposed persona. Interactive elements and concept of hierarchy are poorly introduced into the visualisation. (15 – 24.9 marks) All Topic areas were addressed but most topics lack clarity and/or incomplete. Persona of interest is poorly defined. The dashboard does not provide meaningful insights for more informed decision making. Commentary and notes could be more insightful. (25 – 29.9 marks) All Topic areas were addressed but some topics lacks clarity and/or incomplete. Key elements of quality visualisation dashboard are included (e.g. charts, colour, interactive elements). However, it is unclear how the visualisation could help the defined persona with decision making. (30 – 34.9 marks) All Topic areas were demonstrated clearly and are complete. Commentary and notes are insightful and clearly explain the logic behind constructing the interactive dashboard. (35 – 39.9 marks) An exceptional understanding of all specified Topic areas was clearly demonstrated. The visualisation clearly supports the defined persona for insightful, data-driven decision making. (40 – 50 marks) Overall Presentation Quality of Presentation Submission 10% The presentation lacks structure. There is NO logical flow across presentation slides and/or presentation is unclear. (0 – 2.9 marks) The structure of the presentation submission was unclear and difficult to follow. (3 – 4.9 marks) The presentation submission had a basic structure but was inconsistent or incomplete. (5 – 5.9 marks) The presentation was well- presented and a good basic structure was provided. (6 – 6.9 marks) The presentation submission was complete and very well presented. (7 – 7.9 marks) The presentation submission was skilfully prepared and comprehensively presented. (8 – 10 marks) Written Component (%) GLO1 GLO2 Identified and described data elements, described audience, explained charts 35% None of the specified Topic areas was answered clearly or completely. Ethical considerations are NOT addressed. There is NO explanation (support) for the use of different charts, graphs etc. and some data are incorrectly classified. (0 – 10.4 marks) Only a few of the specified Topic areas was answered clearly or completely. Audience (persona of interest) is poorly described or questions developed are too basic to justify a need for an interactive visualisation. (10.5 – 17.4 marks) All Topic areas were addressed but most topics lack clarity and/or incomplete. A clear alignment between visual elements (charts, graphs etc.) and objectives of the persona described is lacking. Ethical considerations could be discussed in further details. (17.5 – 20.9 marks) All Topic areas were addressed but some topics lack clarity and/or incomplete. Persona of interest needs further development in terms of his/er requirements and alignment between visualisation elements and questions developed. (21 – 24.4 marks) All Topic areas were addressed with clear and complete answers. (24.5 – 27.9 marks) An exceptional understanding of all specified Topic areas was clearly demonstrated. Persona of interest is well-developed. there is a clear logical link between the choice of visualisation elements and the persona’s objectives. Ethical considerations are well-thought and clearly argued. (28 – 35 marks) Overall Presentation Quality of Written Submission 5% The written submission lacks structure. There is NO logical flow across presentation slides and/or presentation is unclear. (0 – 1.4 marks) The structure of the written submission was unclear and difficult to follow. (1.5 – 2.4 marks) The written submission had a basic structure but was inconsistent or incomplete. (2.5 – 2.9 marks) All written topic areas were covered and basic structure was provided. (3 – 3.4 marks) The written submission was complete and very well presented. (3.5 – 3.9 marks) The written submission was skilfully prepared and comprehensively presented. (4 – 5 marks) OVERALL 100% (Equivalent of 35 Marks) 0 - 29% 30% - 49% 50% - 59% 60% - 69% 70% - 79% 80% - 100% Overall Description Or Equivalent Fail (N) Or Equivalent Pass (P) Or Equivalent Credit (C) Or Equivalent Distinction (D) Or Equivalent High Distinction (HD)