[INFORMATION TO BE UPDATED – DO NOT USE]
Peer-Reviewer 1: Provide feedback in three levels:
Macro – What is your overall response/impression to the experience? Do the ideas/images work together and offer a genuine engagement?
Messo – Focus on the relationship images/links/scenes : are there clear connections and a developing line of thought as one progresses through the image? Has the author provided appropriate sign-posts, transitions, and cues to help readers/players navigate through the ideas?
Micro – Focus on the writing-level and sprite-level elements of the project: are there any writing issues? Are there pixels out of place? Check alignment issues, color choices, links, sounds, and the like, and provide feedback to the author about those issues.
Reviewer 1 needs to respond to this project in audio form. Record comments for each of the three levels and send the author a copy of the comments. The author will need to submit the audio file (via Canvas/email) with his/her paper.
Peer-Reviewer 2: Function as a usability expert. Play through every click, link, button, tab, engagement and be excessively critical about each usable (or actionable) element. Does the link function properly? If there is a transition effect, does that effect convey the right kind of relationship between the elements? The more thorough the usability testing, the more successful the final product.
Reviewer 2 needs to respond to this project in audio form. Record comments for each of the three levels and send the author a copy of the comments. The author will need to submit the audio file (via Canvas/email) with his/her paper.
Authors should revise their work based on the feedback from the peer review and include all drafts and edited/marked copies with the final version.
Peer-Reviewers – thorough and effective reviews can earn up to 30 pts per review.
Peer-Reviewee (i.e., author) – Authors who take feedback into consideration before submitting their final draft can receive 15 pts per review (max of 3 reviews).