Interactive notebook + infographic or science visualization. 250 points total (20% of the course grade). Rubric cells may not map exactly to specific point scores.
| Deliverable | Points |
|---|---|
| 1. Proposal | 25 |
| 2. Narrative structure check-in | 25 |
| 3. Final-piece sketches + critique reflection | 25 |
| 4. Final presentation | 50 |
| 5. Final submission: interactive notebook (50) + infographic / science visualization (50) + design rationale (25) | 125 |
| Component | Excellent | Satisfactory | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset7 pts | Source, collection method, size, and key variables are described; the dataset is substantial and not a toy dataset. | Dataset is appropriate, but the description is missing its source, size, or variables. | Dataset is trivial or built-in, or not described. |
| Research questions8 pts | Three or more specific, answerable questions that go beyond single summary statistics. | Questions are reasonable but vague or shallow. | Fewer than three questions, or questions the data can't answer. |
| Audience, track & interactions7 pts | Names a specific audience and track, and proposes interactions with a clear reason a static chart wouldn't be enough. | Audience or interactions named, but generic ("the public," "add a dropdown"). | Missing audience, track, or interaction ideas. |
| Team plan3 pts | Every member has a clear lead role. | Roles missing or unbalanced. | |
| Component | Excellent | Satisfactory | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence from the notebook6 pts | Two or three candidate findings, each backed by a chart from the notebook. | Findings listed, but with weak or missing chart support. | No notebook results shown. |
| Takeaway, track & audience6 pts | A specific one-sentence takeaway, a chosen track, a named audience, and a clear reason this finding beat the others. | Decision made, but the takeaway is vague or the reasoning is missing. | No clear decision. |
| Narrative structure6 pts | Names a structure from class and explains why it fits the takeaway and audience. | Structure named, but the fit isn't explained. | No structure identified. |
| Outline & chart plan7 pts | Beat-by-beat outline (hook, evidence in order, takeaway) and a plan for which charts to reuse, redesign, or add. | Outline or chart plan present, but incomplete. | Missing. |
| Component | Excellent | Satisfactory | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thumbnails & rough draft10 pts | Two or more genuinely different layouts plus a rough draft of the strongest one, developed enough to critique. | Only one layout, layouts that differ only slightly, or no rough draft. | Missing or too rough to critique. |
| Takeaway & audience7 pts | A specific one-sentence takeaway and a named audience, both reflected in the layouts. | Takeaway or audience stated, but vague or disconnected from the sketches. | Missing. |
| Critique participation & follow-up8 pts | Gave specific, constructive feedback to other groups; submitted a critique reflection with a concrete plan for each piece of feedback. | Participated, but the feedback given or the follow-up plan was thin. | Absent, or no reflection submitted. |
| Component | Excellent | Satisfactory | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Live demo15 pts | Uses the interactions live to reveal the key insights; the audience sees why interactivity matters. | Shows the notebook, but scrolls through cells rather than using the interactions purposefully. | No demo, or the notebook breaks during the presentation. |
| Final piece draft13 pts | A near-final draft whose takeaway and design choices are explained. | An early draft, or shown without explanation. | Missing. |
| Structure & time11 pts | Clear context → evidence → takeaway; finishes within 10 minutes. | Generally organized, but ran over or rushed. | Disorganized, or significantly over time. |
| Delivery & team11 pts | Every member speaks; confident and audience-facing. | Uneven speaking roles, or delivery read from the screen. | One person presents everything, or hard to follow. |
| Component | Excellent | Satisfactory | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| About section8 pts | Engaging introduction to the data, its source and limitations, and the research questions; static charts use explanatory techniques (active titles, annotation, highlighting). | Data and questions introduced, but limitations are missing or the static charts are exploratory-style with no emphasis. | Missing or reads like lab notes. |
| Answers to research questions10 pts | At least three charts meaningfully answer the research questions, and each is followed by an interpretation of what to notice and what it means. | Charts address the questions, but interpretations just describe the chart rather than explain it. | Fewer than three charts, or charts unrelated to the questions. |
| Interaction design12 pts | Uses ipywidgets controls and Plotly micro-interactions, each with a clear purpose, stated in a note on what it lets the reader do that a static chart couldn't. Linked views or other thoughtful touches earn full marks. | Requirements met, but some interactions add little (redundant hover text, a dropdown with no meaningful choices). | Missing ipywidgets or Plotly, or interactions that get in the way of reading the chart. |
| Visual design8 pts | Effective chart types and encodings; clear titles, labels, and units; formatted hover text; accessible color. | Mostly effective, with a few encoding or labeling errors. | Poorly chosen chart types or encodings; unlabeled axes; raw column names. |
| Narrative & takeaway6 pts | Reads like a short article a newcomer could follow; ends with a clear main takeaway. | Mostly followable, but the transitions or the takeaway are weak. | No narrative thread; no takeaway. |
| Reproducibility6 pts | Runs top-to-bottom in a fresh kernel with no errors; data (or a download script), requirements, and HTML backup included. | Runs after minor fixes (a path, a missing package). | Does not run, or data is missing. |
| Component | Excellent | Satisfactory | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main takeaway10 pts | A single, clear takeaway a reader gets within seconds; stands on its own without the notebook. | Takeaway present, but competing with secondary points or requiring effort to find. | No clear takeaway; reads like a collage of charts. |
| Audience fit & genre10 pts | Infographic: plain language and a headline a general reader understands. Science vis: labeled panels and a complete figure legend (sample sizes, error bars defined) at journal standard. | Mostly fits the audience, but uses jargon (infographic) or has an incomplete legend (science vis). | Wrong level for the audience, or ignores the conventions of the genre. |
| Composition & visual design25 pts | Clear visual hierarchy and reading order; consistent alignment, type, and color; effective encodings; accessible color. | Generally well designed, with some clutter, misalignment, or competing emphasis. | Cluttered or confusing layout; ineffective encodings. |
| Data integrity5 pts | Data marks generated from code; source cited (on the graphic for an infographic, in the figure legend for a science visualization); no deceptive encodings; uncertainty shown where relevant. | Minor issues (source hard to find, a questionable axis choice). | Misleading encodings, hand-drawn data marks, or no source. |
| Design rationale & revision25 pts | Rationale explains audience, takeaway, and three design decisions; the revision clearly responds to presentation feedback; contribution statement included. | Rationale present but thin, or the revisions are minor. | No rationale, or no evidence of revision. |