Final Architecture Design Rubric
Evaluation Considerations
Category	Attribute	Plus/Check/Minus
Requirements	Use Cases cover core gameplay
	Use Cases are reasonable (not overly ambitious for Alpha
	Use Cases provide clear, concise descriptions of gameplay scenarios
	Non-functional requirements that impact architecture are clearly articulated
Domain Diagrams	Domain diagram identifies key domain concepts found in Use Cases
	Domain diagram identifies key relationships found in Use Cases
Class Diagrams	Simple and Intuitive;
	Uses real game objects.
	Clearly articulates important aspects of interface.
	Identifies major collaborations between classes.
	Obeys single responsibility principle.
	Favors composition over inheritence.
	Obeys Law of Demeter.
	Encapsulates variation.
	Diagrams are clear and well drawn.
Sequence Diagrams	Realize Use Cases
	Illustrate Low Coupling
	Avoids unnecessary details
	Diagrams are clear and well drawn.
Other Models	Scoring models are clearly described, responsibilities for maintaining and updated these models are clear in class and sequence diagrams
	Simulation models are clearly described, responsibilities for maintaining and updated these models are clear in class and sequence diagrams
	Data models ncluding data structures and input/output specs are described, responsibilities for maintaining data is clear in class and sequence diagrams
	Important algorithms are clearly described, responsibilities for implementing these algorithms are clear in class and sequence diagrams
Feasibility;	The team can build the architecture within Phase 2
Testability	No obvious problems in testing an implementation of this architecture
Extensibility	Design sufficiently flexible that extending for final game is reasonable
	Follows open-closed principle
	Design sufficiently intuitive and flexible so that others could extend
Design Patternsl	Used as appropriate
Critique	Problems in architecture are identified
	Reasons for not addressing problems are discussed
Response to Design Review	Discusses how the design was reviewd in response to review issues
	Discusses issues raised in the review that were not addressed

Team:

Grade(10, 7, 3, 0):

Comments:

Mike Erlinger