Update details about assessment folder structure.

Author: applebyter

assessment/.gitignore

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# Ignore supplementary assessment folders, so they are not published to GitHub.
+supplementary/
+supplementary presentation/

assessment/presentation-case-study/criteria.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+\clearpage
+\begin{landscape}
+
+\section*{Presentation Criteria}
+
+\fontsize{9}{11}\selectfont
+
+\begin{xltabular}{\linewidth}{| P{1.6cm} | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |}
+\hline
+\multicolumn{1}{|c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Criteria}}} &
+  \multicolumn{7}{c|}{\textbf{Standard}} \\ \cline{2-8} 
+\multicolumn{1}{|c}{} &
+  \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Exceptional ~ (7)}} &
+  \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Advanced ~ (6)}} &
+  \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Proficient ~ (5)}} &
+  \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Functional ~ (4)}} &
+  \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Developing ~ (3)}} &
+  \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Little Evidence ~ (2)}} &
+  \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{No Evidence ~ (1)}} \\ \hline
+\endhead
+%
+\textbf{~Context\newline 10\%} &
+Project is introduced clearly and well situated within its context, providing an excellent starting point to understand the system. &
+Project is introduced clearly with good~con\-textual information, providing a good starting point to understand the system. &
+Project is introduced well with a good over\-view of its context, providing a clear but basic overview of the system. &
+Project is introduced fairly well with some contextual informa\-tion, providing a com\-prehensible over\-view of the system. &
+Project scope \& general context are fairly clear, providing a general overview of the system. &
+Project scope \& context are not clear, providing a poor overview of the system. &
+Project scope \& context are confusing, providing an inaccurate overview of the system. \\
+\hline
+
+\textbf{~ ~ASRs\newline 10\%} &
+ASRs are clearly described, well justified, clearly of high importance, and all will influence architecture decisions. &
+ASRs are clearly described, fairly well jus\-tified, seemingly of high importance, and all are likely to influ\-ence architecture decisions. &
+Most ASRs are well described but a few justifications are a little weak. Most are important and likely to influence architecture decisions. &
+Some ASRs are well described but a few justifications are weak. Most are important and likely to influence architecture decisions. &
+Some ASRs are fairly well described but some justifications~are weak. Some are important and likely to influence architecture decisions. &
+Most ASRs are poorly described or poorly justified. Few are im\-portant or likely to influence architecture decisions. &
+Most ASRs are poorly described and poorly justified. Very few are important or likely to influence architecture decisions. \\
+\hline
+
+\textbf{Architecture\newline ~~Diagrams\newline20\%} &
+All diagrams are easy to comprehend, convey important information, and enhance the presentation. &
+Most diagrams are easy to comprehend, convey important~in\-formation, and are used well in the presentation. &
+Most diagrams are comprehensible, convey useful information, and are used well in the presentation. &
+Most diagrams are comprehensible, convey useful information, and are connected to the presentation. &
+Most diagrams are comprehensible, convey some useful information, and are mostly connected to the presentation. &
+Some diagrams are incomprehensible, do not convey useful information, or are disconnected from the presentation. &
+Most diagrams are incomprehensible, do not convey useful information, or are disconnected from the presentation. \\
+\hline
+
+\textbf{Architecture\newline25\%} &
+Description is clear, complete, concise, in\-formative and at an appropriate level of detail,
+resulting in an excellent, coherent un\-derstanding of the entire architecture. &
+Description is clear, seemingly complete, informative and at an appropriate level of detail,
+resulting in a good coherent understanding of the entire architecture. &
+Description is mostly clear, informative and at an appropriate level of detail,
+resulting in a good understanding of the architecture structure. &
+Description is mostly clear, informative and at an appropriate level of detail,
+resulting in a good overview of the architecture structure. &
+At times the architecture description is not clear, informative or at an appropriate level of detail,
+resulting in a slightly vague overview of the architecture structure. &
+Architecture descrip\-tion is not clear, informative or at an appropriate level of detail,
+resulting in an incomplete understanding of the architecture structure. &
+Architecture descrip\-tion is not clear, informative or at an appropriate level of detail,
+resulting in an incorrect understanding of the architecture structure. \\
+\hline
+
+\textbf{Critique\newline 25\%} &
+Clear, accurate, insightful \& concise~cri\-tique, demonstrating in-depth knowledge of the entire architecture. &
+Clear, accurate \& fairly insightful critique, de- monstrating fairly in-depth knowledge of the entire architecture. &
+Mostly clear, accurate, and at times insightful critique, demonstrating good knowledge of the architecture structure. &
+Mostly clear and accurate critique, demon- strating fairly good knowledge of the architecture structure. &
+At times critique is not clear or is inaccurate, demonstrating some deficiencies in understanding the architecture structure. &
+Unclear or inaccurate critique, demonstrating incomplete understanding of the architecture structure. &
+Confusing or very inaccurate critique, demonstrating poor understanding of the architecture structure. \\
+\hline
+
+\textbf{Presentation\newline 10\%} &
+Presentation is well paced and delivered fluently. Information is logically sequenced, with clear objectives making it very easy to follow. &
+Presentation is well paced and delivered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with some clear objectives making it easy to follow. &
+Presentation is mostly well paced and~de\-livered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with signposting guiding audience through presentation. &
+Presentation pace is~a little inconsistent or delivery is occasionally unclear. Information is logically sequenced allowing audience to follow presentation fairly well. &
+Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is sometimes unclear. Information is not always logically sequenced, distracting audience from presentation flow. &
+Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is unclear. Information is not logically sequenced, and planned progression was not clear to audience. &
+Presentation pace is inconsistent and delivery is unclear. Information is poorly sequenced, confusing audience. \\
+\hline
+
+\end{xltabular}
+
+\end{landscape}

assessment/presentation-case-study/latexmkrc

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+ensure_path( 'TEXINPUTS', '../../tex//' );
+ensure_path( 'BIBINPUTS', '../../references//', '../../../references//' );
+
+@default_files = ('main.tex');
+
+$pdflatex = 'pdflatex -interaction=nonstopmode -shell-escape';
+$out_dir = 'out';
+
+$pdf_mode = 1;