Poor: 0-1 Points

Colors clash and are jarring.

Background is excessively busy.

Average: 2-3 Points

Colors are complementary. Background is appropriate.

Superior: 4-5 Points

Colors are subdued and pleasing to the eye. Background is subtle and doesn't distract. Colors and background are consistent throughout site.

Poor: 0-1 Points

No obvious reason for graphic selections. They are distracting.

Average: 2-3 Points

Graphic elements add interest and do not distract. They are appropriate for the sites' purpose.

Superior: 4-5 Points

Graphics provide information relevant to site. Their use makes it easier to understand the purpose and intent of the author.

Poor: 0-1 Points

"Mystery Meat" navigation: Site uses nebulous icons as links. No text-based navigational links provided.

Information is difficult to find.

Average: 2-3 Points

Either a text-based or image map navigation resource is included. It is clear and easy to use. Information is easy to find.

Superior: 4-5 Points

Both text and image based navigational links are provided. It is consistent throughout the site.

Poor: 0-1 Points

Download is slow. No alternative text format offered. Some links don't work. At least some level of browser incompatibility.

Average: 2-3 Points

Useful information available within 30 seconds. Alternative text version available. Pages look good, if not identical, in most browsers and releases.

Superior: 4-5 Points

Appearance essentially browser independent. Viewer has access to overview of page in a few seconds and can decide if it merits further examination.

Poor: 0-1 Points

Little if any authorship information offered. URL is probably that of a personal page.

Average: 2-3 Points

Author is identified. Author is available for contact by email. Purpose and scope of site is clearly stated.

Superior: 4-5 Points

Source of authors' expertise is clear and organizational affiliation is given. Resource links used to develop content are included. Date of most recent update available and current. Institutional URL.

Poor: 0-1 Points

No resource links used in site development are offered. Language and tone may seem biased. Informational links are of low quality.

Average: 2-3 Points

Informational and resource links are current and useful. No bias evident in presentation.

Superior: 4-5 Points

Resource and informational links are annotated and verifiable.

Poor: 0-1 Points

Design and content inappropriate for intended audience or difficult to assign to a particular audience.

Average: 2-3 Points

Design and content appropriate for intended audience.

Superior: 4-5 Points

Design features and content clearly target intended audience. Site is unusually attractive.