Build4Better

-Fully custom idea, or a starter direction reinvented with a bold, original twist. Clearly built around helping people learn technology, not just doing it for them. (5 Marks) -Strong idea with a clear original twist or a custom angle. Fits the brief well, but the twist is smaller or less developed. (4 Marks) -Picked one of the given examples with little change. Fits the brief, but is not original. (3 Marks) -Loosely related to the brief. Generic idea (e.g. a basic chatbot) with weak focus on helping users learn. (2 Marks) -Off-brief, or a tool that automates everything and teaches nothing. No original thinking. (1 Mark)

-Built around a specific person (a parent or grandparent), backed by real evidence such as interviews, personas, or observed scenarios. Reflects their fears, language, and habits. (5 Marks) -Specific user with clear, realistic pain points. Some evidence of research, but not deep or tested. (4 Marks) -Names a target user and a few pain points, but the picture is generic ("older people"). (3 Marks) -User is vaguely defined. Only one or two pain points, and they are assumed. (2 Marks) -No clear user, or the user is assumed to be tech-savvy. (1 Mark)

-Distinct, thoughtful design with large readable text, high contrast, plain language, very few steps, and forgiving navigation. Strong accessibility (voice, local language). (5 Marks) -Clean, intentional design with most accessibility basics covered. Only minor issues with clutter or wording. (4 Marks) -Generic or AI-looking default design (template layout, stock gradients, default components). Usable, but with no design decisions of its own. (3 Marks) -Cluttered or inconsistent. Small text, some jargon, or too many steps. A new user would struggle. (2 Marks) -Confusing layout, hidden menus, or technical terms everywhere. A first-time user would get stuck and feel foolish. (1 Mark)

-Sensitive data (banking, health, messages) handled carefully, with clear consent and user control. Risks explained in plain words without causing fear. (5 Marks) -Good safety thinking, with consent and data handling mostly clear. One or two gaps. (4 Marks) -Basic safety measures, but data handling or consent is poorly explained. (3 Marks) -Safety mentioned but barely built in. Unclear what data is collected or why. (2 Marks) -Ignores privacy and safety. Collects data without explanation or exposes the user to scams or device takeover. (1 Mark)

-Fully working prototype with reliable core features, sound technical choices, and a polished finish. Handles errors gracefully and is ready for real users. (5 Marks) -Core features work well, with only minor bugs or small missing pieces. (4 Marks) -Core feature works, but with noticeable bugs, rough edges, or parts that are mocked up. (3 Marks) -Only part of the idea works. Frequent errors, or mostly mockups with one working feature. (2 Marks) -Mostly non-functional or crashes during the demo. Core idea isn't delivered. (1 Mark)

-Clearly explains the problem, demos live, and shows real-world potential (how families or communities would use it). Confident, well-structured pitch. (5 Marks) -Clear explanation and a smooth demo. Impact is shown, but with less depth or evidence. (4 Marks) -Explains the idea and shows a demo, but impact is only partly shown or the pitch is uneven. (3 Marks) -Unclear in places. Demo is weak or partly broken, and the benefit to users is barely explained. (2 Marks) -No clear problem or solution, no real demo, and no sense of who benefits. Hard to follow. (1 Mark)