GLAMi Scoring Rubrics

GLAMi 2021 Scoring Rubrics

Design

This category looks at projects that are creative, strategic, aesthetically strong, demonstrate good usability, accessibility, and are socially, economically, environmentally, and museologically considerate. This category also spans project types – web, mobile, in-gallery, kiosk, immersive, tangible/natural/digital interfaces, blended environments, A/V/M/XR, linear media (audio/video), etc.

Consider how the project makes you feel, what the mood is, what its identity is, determine what you think its objective is and how it accomplishes that objective. Also consider the following facets – they are not necessarily going to provoke yes/no answers. Simply consider how the project does the following.

Architecture/Information Architecture

  • Does the project have a logical model and flow of system design. Is it structured and well organized? Does it promote good usability?
  • Is the navigation easily understandable and takes you where you expect to go? Is your orientation within the project easy to understand – do you know where you are, where you can navigate to, and how to easily get there?

Presentation Layout and/or Interface Design

  • Is the interface and/or layout of the project clear and consistent? 
  • Are there obvious information and visual hierarchies? Can a user easily pan and scan the content?
  • Is there strong semantic hierarchies within the project (if/as applicable depending on the nature of the project)?

Function Design

  • Does functionality operate smoothly and as intended?
  • Are tasks and workflows sensical, efficient, and allow users to complete intended tasks easily and efficiently?

Colour and Contrast

  • Do colour combinations ensure clear fore and background distinctions?
  • Are colours used creatively and functionally? Do they contribute to an aesthetically strong identity while also ensuring good usability and accessibility?

Typography

  • With the typefaces are glyphs distinguishable from one another (ie. lower case “L”, uppercase “i”, and number “1” are distinguishable)? Are they set at an appropriate size (for in-situ are they an appropriate size for expected distance of viewing)?
  • Is the use of type deliberate and consistent and does it contribute to clear readability? (Or are there so many typefaces, fonts, & styles that it’s a mess?)
  • Is the kerning, leading, and tracking appropriate and help to pace and space the project’s presentation?

Media and Composition

  • Is media – sound, image, text – used deliberately? Is it produced in a manner that best supports the project (editing) and makes for an aesthetically pleasing and functionally appropriate composition?
  • Is the project well spaced and paced?

Ethics and Values

  • Does this project contribute to the field, the organization, and/or the stated goals in a responsible manner?
  • Should this project exist and if so, were the responsible organizations’ resources well used in its design and production?
  • Is the project considerate of the social, political, environmental, and economic realities of the past year?

Inclusive Design and Accessibility

  • Is the project WCAG 2.1 AA compliant (can be checked quickly with Wave, or W3C validator – to get a non-comprehensive idea).
  • Does the project’s media include accessibility affordances?
    • Image: alt text/description
    • Video: Captioning, American Sign Language (ASL), Audio description, volume control/adjustability, transcription
    • Audio: Captioning, ASL, transcription
  • Does the project welcome and take into account the needs of visitors of different ages, genders, cultures, and physical and cognitive abilities?

Interactive and Immersive

This is a broad category in which projects fall on a spectrum of experiential to didactic and may fulfill divergent purposes, satisfying multiple needs, at a variety of scales and effort.  We are interested in finding projects that go beyond basic expectations and are some of the best at what they do, even if they do it in different ways. 

These projects are the ones that will leave a lasting and satisfying impression with our visitors. 

Delight and Inspiration 

  • Does it spark joy (or an alternate emotion appropriate to the tone of the experience)?
  • Are you thinking about it days later in your head? 
  • Will you tell other people about it? 
  • Will you use it as a reference example? 

Well Crafted 

  • Did you know what to do? 
  • Was the intent of the experience clear? 
  • Are there little things that show attention to detail? 
  • Does it feel well thought out with few rough edges to the experience? 
  • Does it feel like a labor of love? 

Experience and Story

  • Is it interesting and compelling? 
  • Do you forget where you are while spending time with it? 
  • Do you want to spend more time with the experience or content? 

Suitability and Appropriateness

  • Does it feel like an optimal approach for the intended experience? 
  • Does it make good use of the available resources of the organization? 
  • Was it effective in what it was trying to do? 
  • Does it feel consistent?

Risk 

  • Did the creators take a chance in doing this? 
  • Is it a stretch for the organization? 
  • Does this feel like something new?

Inclusive Design and Accessibility

  • Is the project WCAG 2.1 AA compliant (can be checked quickly with Wave, or W3C validator – to get a non-comprehensive idea).
  • Does the project’s media include accessibility affordances?
    • Image: alt text/description
    • Video: Captioning, American Sign Language (ASL), Audio description, volume control/adjustability, transcription
    • Audio: Captioning, ASL, transcription
  • Does the project welcome and take into account the needs of visitors of different ages, genders, cultures, and physical and cognitive abilities?

Marketing and Promotion

Content and Relevance

  • Was the tone, style, and platform appropriate for the target audience(s)?
  • Was it relevant and considerate of the broader social and political climate at the time?

Creativity

  • Did this project stand out for its concept, design, wording, or tone?
  • Did the creators try something risky and new?
  • Considering any constraints on the organization, was the project resourceful, groundbreaking, and/or transformative (e.g., time or resource constraints)?

Audience Engagement

  • Did audiences respond to this project? 
  • Did the project serve as a starting point for further participation?

Brand Alignment & Advancement

  • Did this project advance the organization’s mission and/or strategic goals?
  • Did it enhance the organization’s brand?

Effectiveness

  • How successful was the project in relation to its original objectives?
  • Did it help the organization reach new audiences? 

Inclusive Design and Accessibility

  • Is the project WCAG 2.1 AA compliant (can be checked quickly with Wave, or W3C validator – to get a non-comprehensive idea).
  • Does the project’s media include accessibility affordances?
    • Image: alt text/description
    • Video: Captioning, American Sign Language (ASL), Audio description, volume control/adjustability, transcription
    • Audio: Captioning, ASL, transcription
  • Does the project welcome and take into account the needs of visitors of different ages, genders, cultures, and physical and cognitive abilities?

Resources for General Audience and Families

This category features digital content for adults and children, including teachers, families, classes, and independent visitors. Examples include exhibition microsites, teacher resources, lesson plans, plan-ahead and post-visit content.

Relevance

  • Is the project appropriate to the intended audience?
  • Does the project represent a deep understanding of that audience?
  • Does the project offer tools, content, features, and experiences those audiences need or desire?

Ease of Use 

  • Is the project well-organized and easy to understand and use?
  • Is the user journey clear and well-designed, with clear calls to action?
  • Does the project adhere to accessibility standards?

Effectiveness

  • Can the intended audience reach its goals?
  • Does the project enhance the organization’s outreach or relationship with the intended audience?
  • Does it advance the mission and goals of the organization?
  • Does it advance the field?
  • Does it show good value for the effort and resources expended?

Emotional Resonance

  • Is the language and tone of voice appropriate for the audience?
  • Is it an enjoyable, attractive, and/or satisfying experience?
  • Are the presentation and interactions pleasing?
  • Does the experience represent some value to the intended audience?
  • Is it distinct from other types of experiences in some way?

Inclusive Design and Accessibility

  • Is the project WCAG 2.1 AA compliant (can be checked quickly with Wave, or W3C validator – to get a non-comprehensive idea).
  • Does the project’s media include accessibility affordances?
    • Image: alt text/description
    • Video: Captioning, American Sign Language (ASL), Audio description, volume control/adjustability, transcription
    • Audio: Captioning, ASL, transcription
  • Does the project welcome and take into account the needs of visitors of different ages, genders, cultures, and physical and cognitive abilities?

Resources for Scholars and Researchers

Projects in this category are intended primarily for seekers of information or knowledge. They may include sites featuring original texts or transcriptions; searchable databases; museum collections sites; and aggregations of content from other sites or repositories. 

Promotion of new types of scholarship. Does this resource allow new kinds of research that would not be available in other formats? Does it advance the scholarly ecosystem in its area? Is the source of any content presented clearly understood or cited?

Quality and usability. Does the resource achieve what it is trying to accomplish? Does it have the tools, depth, and information needed by a target audience of researchers and scholars? (Note: researchers and scholars may include students of all ages.)

Design. Is the design of the resource appropriate to its goals and intended audience? Can it be easily navigated by its users? Does the information follow a logical hierarchy or pattern, and is the amount and nature of the content easily perceived from the home page or initial landing pages?

Relevance. Is this tool of particular relevance for supporting an under-represented area of scholarship? Is the content unique and credible? 

Sustainability and interoperability. Does the resource consider longevity and permanence of reference? Is it using metadata standards helping the data be transferable, mappable to other research resources, and interoperable?

Inclusive Design and Accessibility

  • Is the project WCAG 2.1 AA compliant (can be checked quickly with Wave, or W3C validator – to get a non-comprehensive idea).
  • Does the project’s media include accessibility affordances?
    • Image: alt text/description
    • Video: Captioning, American Sign Language (ASL), Audio description, volume control/adjustability, transcription
    • Audio: Captioning, ASL, transcription
  • Does the project welcome and take into account the needs of visitors of different ages, genders, cultures, and physical and cognitive abilities?

Tools and Professional Practices

Reproducibility

  • How well does the project/tool describe or include methods for implementation at other institutions?
  • Poor: Zero documentation
  • Exemplary: Multiple walkthroughs and tutorials in varied contexts

Resources

  • Can the time, effort, and technology required to implement the project be scaled for use by organizations (or individuals) of different sizes and resources?
  • Poor: Can only be realized by large, well-funded teams
  • Exemplary: A small, eager, non-technical staff can reap similar benefits to any other implementer

Dissemination

  • To what degree does the project focus on spreading the impact of the tool to a broader community?
  • Poor: Tool driven solely by local motivations with no acknowledgement of how they differ from the community at large
  • Exemplary: Tool solves a community problem and shows how it can be tailored to fit a spectrum of scenarios

Longevity

  • What does it leave behind – what are participants / institutions left with?
  • Poor: A silo project requiring long-term provisioning and no sunset plan
  • Exemplary: new skills or abilities that are readily conveyed to a changing target audience (staff, patrons, etc.)

Sustainability / Evolution

  • How future-proof is the project – to what degree does it depend on a specific funding scheme or technology that might change? Is the lifespan of the project clearly identified? If limited, are provisions for archiving the content and/or adapting the tools indicated?
  • Poor: relies solely on short-term grant funding or aging, proprietary technology
  • Exemplary: self-sustaining funding relying on open software with a robust community outside of GLAMs.

Value

  • How well does the tool convey the value it can bring? How big of a problem is it trying to tackle and is it convincing in its claims of a solution?
  • Poor: it solves a small problem that idiosyncratically applies to one institution
  • Exemplary: tackles a big problem across a swath of the GLAM landscape

Inclusive Design and Accessibility

  • Is the project WCAG 2.1 AA compliant (can be checked quickly with Wave, or W3C validator – to get a non-comprehensive idea).
  • Does the project’s media include accessibility affordances?
    • Image: alt text/description
    • Video: Captioning, American Sign Language (ASL), Audio description, volume control/adjustability, transcription
    • Audio: Captioning, ASL, transcription
  • Does the project welcome and take into account the needs of visitors of different ages, genders, cultures, and physical and cognitive abilities?