Considerations

0-3

4-7

8-10

Technical Implementa-

tion (35%)

How effective is the technical approach and implementation of the product or solution

Application is inoperable with clear logical errors and/or major bugs.

Application is operable with a few minor bugs

Application showed finesse in terms of software/hardware usage with little to no bugs

Relevance of ideas (20%)

How well does the product/solution line up with the challenge

Application displayed minimal alignment to the problem statements

Application displayed showed some alignment to the problem statements

Application displayed exceptional alignment to the problem statements

Innovation (20%)

Uniqueness and creativeness of the product/solution

(Demonstrates these qualities: inspiring, novel, persuasive, fresh, motivating, engaging, etc.)

Concept is common at best and does not introduce new concepts in an exciting manner

Concept is somewhat novel and captures some of the qualities mentioned

Concept is entirely novel and appropriately encapsulates the qualities mentioned

Usability (15%)

Usability of the solution. How user-friendly is the interface? How difficult was it to utilize the advertised features?

Application is difficult to navigate. Features were hard to access

Application is somewhat easy to navigate. Features could somewhat be accessed

Navigation is seamless and intuitive, features were easily accessible and obvious to use

Viability  (10%)

Prospective social/commercial value that the solution possesses

Product brings little social/commercial value and is unlikely to be used

Product has possible implementation in a social/commercial context

Product has high potential in a social/commercial context. 

Judging Rubrics for Presentation

Considerations

0 - 3

4 - 7

8 - 10

Functionality Presentation

(45%)

The team puts in effort in the presentations and visuals to show the functionality worked as described.

The presentations and visuals show the functionality worked as described.

The presentations and visuals clearly showed the functionality working as described.

Coherence

(35%)

The team can barely articulate, present and relate their prototype to the problem statement chosen and answer some of the questions given by the judges.

The team can articulate, present and relate their prototype to the problem statement chosen and answer several questions given by the judges.

The team can accurately articulate, present and relate their prototype to the problem statement chosen and answer the majority of the questions given by the judges

Clarity

(20%)

Minimal efforts in maintaining a consistent volume, tone, pitch, rhythm and speed are used when presenting.

Efforts in maintaining a consistent volume, tone, pitch, rhythm and speed are used when presenting.

Appropriate and consistent volume, tone, pitch, rhythm and speed are used when presenting.

Judging Rubrics for Special Category

Special Category Prize

Qualities to look out for 

Most boomer-friendly

1. Text clearly visible (medium to large font size)

2. Simple and easily understandable phrasing

3. Easy traversal between menus

4. Minimal steps required to utilise main function

5. Translation feature is a plus

6. Functionality is clear

Most Unorthodox hack

1. Most unique solution across all hacks

Most outstanding undergraduate year 1 hack

1. Highest score for undergraduate year 1 participants

2. Team must consist entirely of year 1 undergraduate students

Most impressive usage of data

1. Application interacts with some form of data (collection/processing/analysing/manipulating)

2. Data interaction is done in an appropriate and effective manner

Best Community Impact

1. Given to the team who has the most positive impact on the community

2. Addresses a significant social issue

Most impressive Pre-U hack

1. Most impressionable preu-u participant team

2. Team must consist entirely of pre-u students