Editing Grading rubrics (section)

=== Talking clock ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Criteria !! Description !! Maximum Points
|-
| Interface Design || Aesthetics and layout of the clock's GUI. Incl. aspects like color scheme, font choices, visual consistency, and user-friendliness. || 2
|-
| Usability || Ease of use and intuitiveness. Is it straightforward for a user to interact with and customize? Does it require a steep learning curve? || 2
|-
| Audio Quality || Quality of the audio recordings used for time announcements. Incl. clarity, pronunciation, volume, and overall audio experience. || 2
|-
| Documentation || Clarity and completeness of the documentation provided. Is everything properly explained? If there are multiple languages in the talking clock, is there some reflection on relevant differences between the languages? Are ethical issues mentioned in the documentation (if there are none, this should be motivated)? || 2
|-
| Customization Options || Variety and utility of customization options. This may include language selection, voice options, snooze, alarm, time zones, and other features. || 2
|-
| colspan="2" |Total
|10
|}
Key:

* 0.0: Not addressed at all.
* 0.5: Addressed in a very minimal way
* 1.0: Addressed to a limited extent
* 1.5: Addressed very well
* 2.0: Addressed perfectly, nothing can be improved.