|Compelling: catches attention
||Does not use the affordances of the platform well in service of the concept
||Plays with the affordances in a way that shows awareness of the issue
||Plays with the affordances of the platform in a way that captures attention
||Plays with the affordances of the platform in a seamless way demonstrating mastery of the procedural rhetorics involved
|Compelling: it is complete
||Does not address the historical questions raised.
||Touches upon the issues slightly
||Engages/subverts the issues in a workaday manner
||Engages/subverts the issues with thoughtfulness
||Fully engages/subverts the issues with elan and flair
|Compelling: is it 'truthful'
||Does not engage with the secondary literature and scholarship
||A minimal engagement
||A basic awareness with the standard secondary literature and scholarship
||Engages with the secondary literature in meaningful ways
||Engages with the secondary literature in insightful ways, advances novel perspectives on this material
|Effectiveness: is it consumable?
||The work is incomprehensible
||The work requires serious effort on the part of the user to understand
||The work is reasonably easy to understand.
||The work is clear, the logic of the arrangement makes sense and serves the argument
||The arrangement of the work subtly directs the user through the material in ways that make the logic of the argument 'obvious' to the user.
||The design shows no awareness of an audience, no concession to making it easy to understand
||A basic use of standard templates
||The design shows some customization of templates, or design from scratch that works aesthetically
||The design is carefully rendered so as to make the platform itself recede into the background; in the words of Jobs, 'it just works'