Project Evaluation
Areas of Evaluation
Technical Complexity (30%)
The hack should be technically impressive for a 24-hour project. They should have code and a functioning demo. Anything like frameworks, APIs, algorithms, interesting languages, and more can add to the technical difficulty of the project.
Usefulness (30%)
The hack doesn't have to be business-ready but should have the potential to be useful in everyday life. It should also be intuitive and easy to use.
Originality (20%)
The hack should be unique and interesting. This can range from a new spin on a known idea to completely outlandish ideas. The hack should be something damn cool you've never seen before.
Design (15%)
The hack should look and work beautifully. The closer it looks and feels to a professional-grade application, the better.
Presentation (5%)
The demo video should clearly explain the problem statement and the solution presented by the hack. The team must showcase their understanding of how their hack adds to, integrates with, minimizes, or assists an existing or potential problem.
Score Criteria
| 0 (No Credit) | 1 (Developing) | 2 (Effective) | 3 (Outstanding) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Complexity (30%) | The project is not interactive or doesn't utilize code (Ex: Wix, Google Sites, Figma) | The project makes use of some frameworks, APIs, algorithms, etc but is not technically difficult. Something that could easily be built within 24 hours. | The project uses difficult-to-use frameworks, APIs, and/or algorithms. Something that would be difficult to build in 24 hours. | The project uses remarkably complex frameworks, APIs, and/or algorithms. Something that judges find incredible to have been built in 24 hours. |
| Usefulness (30%) | Very little or no application. None or poorly identified target users. Challenging to use/not intuitive. | Has applications to real-world problems, but may not be used often by the target audience. | Successfully addresses a relevant issue to a clearly defined target audience. The target user can, and likely would incorporate this project into their lifestyle. | Identifies and addresses a unique, key need to a clearly defined target audience. Highly intuitive for the target user, they would be excited to incorporate it into their life. |
| Originality (20%) | There are already existing solutions/projects that are very similar. | The project adds a twist on an established project/solution but is still widely based on an existing project. | The project is novel or adds an exciting twist to an existing project/technology that makes it better than the original. | The project is groundbreaking and is something judges have never seen before/would never have thought of. Stands out amongst other projects. |
| Design (15%) | The project lacks consistency and looks unpolished. | The project has inconsistent structure and uses clear aesthetics. | The project has a consistent structure and clear aesthetics. Takes advantage of colors and fonts to appeal to the eye. | The project utilizes a coherent set of aesthetics and structure that work together to enrich the user's experience. Professional-grade project. |
| Presentation (5%) | Video is not present. | The video shows the project in action but does not explain the mission/reasoning behind it. The video is unengaging. | Video shows how the project works and what it should be used for while being engaging and clear. | The video goes beyond simply explaining the project but also connects it to the intended outcomes. Extremely engaging and charismatic. |