Loop Rubrics

Reviewers for Animated GIF Loops.

Our reviewers for the animated GIF Loops are Saskia Freeke (London) and Marius Watz (Oslo). Their grades and remarks will be ready by the beginning of class on Friday, 2/9.

Saskia Freeke is a lecturer in Physical Computing at Goldsmiths, University of London. She is an artist, creative coder, interaction designer, visual designer and educator. Her art work focusses on structure, geometry and playfulness. A big part of her artistic practice is her ongoing daily art project that she started January 2015, in which she explores and experiments with generative patterns and animations.

Marius Watz is an artist working with visual abstraction through generative software processes. His work focuses on the synthesis of form as the product of parametric behaviors. He is known for hard-edged geometrical forms and vivid colors, with outputs ranging from pure software works to public projections and physical objects produced with digital fabrication technology.

Information Provided to Reviewers

Below is the information provided to the reviewers:

For each student, I ask that you provide a sentence or two of written feedback, and a number from 0-4. You can also give fractional numbers if you want (e.g. 2.5). A proposed rubric for grading the work is below. You may also examine the general rubrics used in this class.

  • 0 (F) – No credit, generally because the student failed to deliver the assignment at all.
  • 1 (D) – A mess. The project doesn’t work, has major bugs or is incomplete to a point that is impossible to get a clear idea of the user experience.
  • 2 (C) – Unremarkable, Weak, Poor, or Mediocre. Unimaginative work, perhaps only technically satisfactory. The student phoned it in, and the project, while just functional, reveals a lack of evident care. Both the technical execution and the concept are sufficient but not outstanding. Perhaps the student was unable to achieve a seamless loop (even though I gave them template code for doing so, and emphasized that this was important). Perhaps significant components of the assignment are missing (such as the student’s written narrative), and the quality of the visual result can’t justify overlooking the administrative requirements.
  • 3 (B) – Satisfactory or good work, successfully meeting criteria. Good concept and excellent technical execution. Or, vice versa, excellent idea and good technical execution.
  • 4 (A) – Outstanding or exceptional concept and implementation. Generally only 10% of the students, perhaps just 1 or 2 or 3 of them, will earn this grade.

For modeling written feedback, I was really inspired by Milton Glaser’s amazing evaluations of Olympic logos.