| Andy Rader |
| Attributes | | | | |
| Purpose | The project does not indicate clearly what the skills or goals of the artist are, nor does it provide information for the audience to draw possible conclusions as to what the goals and skills might be. | The areas of interest are displayed. The audience is left to wonder why they are looking at the portfolio, or they may need to read through all the materials to divine what the artist is seeking or what the artist’s skills are. | It is clear who the target audience is, or clearly identifies a priority of skills or desire job focus. The audience is not left to wonder why they are looking at the portfolio. | The project clearly relates the artist’s skills and focus in a professional manner not requiring the viewer to shift though the site to discover them; the site itself clearly and cogently complements the goals and skills of the artist. |
| | | | |
| Identity and Branding | The artist’s name is on at least the first page, but contact information must be searched for by the viewer. Other than the name there are no elements to help the viewer identify and remember the artist as they move through the site. | The artist’s name and contact information are displayed on each page. Other than the name and contact information there are no elements to help the viewer identify and remember the artist as they move through the site. | The artist is clearly identified on each page; the audience can quickly see the artist’s name and contact information; consistent identification or branding elements (i.e. logo, icon, symbol, image, photograph, caricature) are present. | The artist is clearly identified so the viewing audience associates the artist’s name with the site and art; the artist’s name or contact information are clearly displayed on each page; consistent identification or branding elements (i.e. logo, icon, symbol, image, photograph, caricature) are present and these elements work with the site in a natural or artistic manner to help the audience identify and remember the artist. |
| | | | |
| Navigation | Navigational tools are absent or confusing. | Navigation is not always consistent or is unclear at times. | Navigation is clear and consistent. | Users can progress intuitively throughout entire project in a logical path to find information. The navigation is consistent. |
| | | | |
| Organization | The sequence of information is not logical. Paths to information are not evident. The user must backtrack to navigate the site. | The sequence of information is somewhat logical. Paths are confusing and flawed. The user need backtrack to navigate to other portions of the site. | The sequence of information is logical. Paths to most information are clear and direct. The user can navigate most any where on the site without needing to backtrack. | The sequence of information is logical and intuitive. Menus and paths to all information are clear and direct. The user is able to navigate to any where in the site without having to backtrack. |
| | | | |
| Design Composition Use of the art elements, (line, shape, value, texture, color, form) and principles of art (harmony, contrast, balance, space, rhythm) | Insufficient use of art elements and principles. | Few art elements and principles event in the project. | Utilizes art elements and principles. | Uniquely and effectively uses art elements and principles. |
| | | | |
| Creativity | Project has little creative energy; it is bland, predictable, and lacked energy to capture the audience’s attention. It does not have any unique or creative aspects. | A few original touches added to enhance the project but are not incorporate it throughout. It appears forced, hard to follow; has too many parts that are strange and do not serve any purpose; tried to be creative but does not work. It has a look and feel that is very common and does not help the project stand out from the crowd. | Project is creative at times; thoughtfully and uniquely presented; it is nice and works well, but is not unique; it has a similar look-and-feel that works well, but may not stand out from the crowd. | Project is extremely creative and presented with originality; it uses a unique approach that truly enhances the project; it shows creativity that works, it is exciting, fresh and intriguing, not just weird. |
| | | | |
| Overall Rating | Unacceptable | Marginal | Acceptable | Exceptional |
| | | | |
| Interview: The longevity of your project and thus your job are depended on having a successful team. Your team requires someone with the expertise of this individual and your boss has asked you to review this portfolio and recommend whether to interview this candidate. Your team has a limited budget (both time and financial), thus choose wisely. What is your personal recommendation based on this portfolio? | The portfolio clearly shows consideration and professionalism in showcasing the candidate’s skills and abilities. You would clearly recommend this candidate for an interview. | The level of skills and professionalism presented in the portfolio is ordinary although it merits a second look if outstanding candidates are not found. | The professionalism or skills shown in the portfolio are meager, or you can see hints of talent but poorly demonstrated, thus you would consider an interview if you have no alternatives. | The portfolio demonstrated insufficient professionalism or skills be considered for an interview. |
| | | | |
| Justify you interview recommendation. | Do not include " in suggestions. |
|
| Suggestions and comments | Do not use " in comments. |
|
| Andy Rader |