← Course home N5 Computing Science  ·  James Gillespie's
WDD  ·  Web Design & Development

Evaluation

Lesson 12 of 13 Approx 1 hr (single period)

Learning intentions

  • Understand the difference between testing and evaluation
  • Know all four evaluation criteria: fitness for purpose, efficient use of coding constructs, robustness, and readability
  • Know what question to ask for each criterion
  • Be able to write an evaluation comment using the judgement + evidence + reference pattern

Success criteria

  • I can explain the difference between testing and evaluation
  • I can name and describe all four evaluation criteria (FERR)
  • I can write an evaluation comment for each criterion: one sentence with a judgement plus evidence
  • I can write a full four-criterion evaluation for a described website
Warm up — what do you already know?

Answer before the lesson begins.

1. What is the purpose of evaluation in web development?

2. Which of the following is a sign of readable code?

3. Which evaluation criterion checks whether the original end-user requirements have been met?

Key vocabulary

evaluation
The process of judging the quality of the finished website against the original requirements. Evaluation asks how good the site is — not just whether it works, but whether it meets its purpose and is well built.
fitness for purpose
Whether the site meets the original requirements: the stated purpose, end-user needs, and functional requirements identified during analysis. The most fundamental evaluation criterion.
efficient use of coding constructs
Whether the code is written well — CSS classes reused rather than repeated, external stylesheets rather than inline styles on every element, no unnecessary duplication of code.
robustness
Whether the site handles different situations without breaking — all links work, images have alt-text fallbacks, the site renders correctly in different browsers and screen sizes.
readability
Whether the code is easy to read and understand — consistent indentation, meaningful class and id names, comments where needed, logical structure.
functional requirements
The specific features and behaviours the website must have, identified during analysis. For example: "the site must include a contact form" or "the site must display the menu on the home page."

Evaluation

Testing vs evaluation

Testing finds errors during development — broken links, missing images, browser compatibility issues. It gives a pass or fail result for each test.

Evaluation is different. It happens after the site is complete and judges the quality of the finished product against the original requirements. Evaluation asks: "How good is this site, and how well does it meet what was originally specified?"

A site can pass all its tests (no broken links, no errors) and still receive a poor evaluation (it doesn't match the design brief, or the code is written poorly).

The four evaluation criteria — FERR

At N5, evaluation is always judged against four criteria. Use the mnemonic FERR to remember them:

F
Fitness for purpose
"Does the site meet the original requirements and end-user needs?"
E
Efficient use of coding constructs
"Is the code well-written, with no unnecessary repetition?"
R
Robustness
"Does the site work reliably in different browsers and situations?"
R
Readability
"Is the code easy to read and understand?"
F Fitness for Purpose Does it meet the original requirements and end-user needs? E Efficient Use of Coding Is the code well-written with no duplication or unnecessary repetition? R Robustness Does it handle errors and work correctly in all browsers? R Readability Is the code easy to read and understand? Mnemonic: FERR — Fitness · Efficient · Robust · Readable

Evaluate every website against all four FERR criteria

Fitness for purpose

This criterion compares the finished site against the requirements identified in the analysis phase. Was the purpose fulfilled? Are the end-user needs met? Are all the functional requirements present?

If the brief said "the site must be suitable for primary school children" but the finished site uses 8pt text and complex academic vocabulary, it fails fitness for purpose — the site does not meet its stated requirements.

Efficient use of coding constructs

This criterion judges whether the code is written efficiently. Good signs:

  • CSS classes are defined once and reused on multiple elements (instead of repeating the same styles inline)
  • Styles are in an external stylesheet rather than repeated as inline style="" attributes on every element
  • No unnecessary duplicate code — if the same rule appears 10 times, it should be a reusable class
  • HTML elements are used correctly and semantically (using <nav> for navigation, not <div> everywhere)

Robustness

This criterion asks whether the site handles different situations without failing. A robust site:

  • Has no broken links
  • Displays images correctly, with alt text as a fallback if an image fails to load
  • Works correctly in different browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari)
  • Displays correctly on different screen sizes (desktop and mobile)

A site that crashes or displays broken content when a user does something unexpected is not robust.

Readability

This criterion judges the code itself — how easy it is for another developer (or the original developer returning months later) to read and understand. Readable code has:

  • Consistent indentation — nested elements are indented to show structure
  • Meaningful identifiers — class and id names describe the element's purpose (nav-link, not div3)
  • Comments where the purpose of code is not obvious
  • Logical structure — related rules are grouped together

How to write an evaluation comment

Every evaluation comment should follow this pattern:

"The site [meets / does not meet] [criterion] because [specific evidence]. [Improvement, if not fully met.]"

For example: "The site does not fully meet fitness for purpose because the contact form is missing — the original brief required a contact form for users to submit enquiries. This should be added in a future version."

Worked examples

Example 1 — Evaluating fitness for purpose

Brief: A restaurant website. Purpose: promote the menu and provide contact information. Target audience: adults. Must work on mobile devices.

1
The site has a menu page with all dishes listed — this requirement is met.
2
A contact page with phone number and address is present — this requirement is met.
3
The site is not mobile-responsive — the layout breaks on a phone screen. This requirement is NOT met.

Evaluation comment: "The site partially meets fitness for purpose — the menu and contact information are present as required (1 mark). However, the site is not responsive on mobile devices, which was a stated requirement; this should be fixed using CSS media queries in a future version (1 mark)."

Example 2 — Evaluating readability: good vs poor code

Compare two versions of the same code:

Poor readability:

<div id="div1"><div id="div2"><a href="index.html" style="color:blue;font-size:14px;text-decoration:none;">Home</a>
<a href="about.html" style="color:blue;font-size:14px;text-decoration:none;">About</a></div></div>

Good readability:

<nav id="main-nav">
  <ul class="nav-list">
    <li><a href="index.html" class="nav-link">Home</a></li>
    <li><a href="about.html" class="nav-link">About</a></li>
  </ul>
</nav>

/* In the CSS file: */
.nav-link {
  color: blue;
  font-size: 14px;
  text-decoration: none;
}

What makes the second version more readable: consistent indentation shows the HTML structure clearly; meaningful ids and class names (main-nav, nav-link) describe the purpose; styles are defined once in CSS rather than repeated inline on each element.

Evaluation comment: "The revised code meets the readability criterion — consistent indentation makes the HTML structure clear, meaningful identifiers describe each element's purpose, and styles are centralised in a CSS class rather than repeated inline."

Example 3 — Full four-criterion evaluation for a school club website

Site description: A website for a school chess club. Original requirements: list club members, show meeting times, include a page for upcoming tournaments. Target audience: S1–S6 pupils. The site has a working nav bar, all three required pages, and consistent indentation. However, images have no alt text, and the same inline styles are repeated on every heading.

Fitness for purpose: The site meets fitness for purpose — all three required pages (members, meeting times, tournaments) are present and the navigation allows all pupils to reach each page easily.

Efficient use of coding constructs: The site does not use coding constructs efficiently — the same inline styles are repeated on every heading rather than being defined once as a CSS class. This should be refactored into a reusable class rule.

Robustness: The site is not fully robust — images lack alt text, so if images fail to load, users and screen readers receive no information about them. Alt text should be added to all images.

Readability: The code meets the readability criterion — consistent indentation is used throughout and the HTML structure is logical and easy to follow.

Now you try

Site description: A website for a local sports club. The site has a working navigation bar, a club logo, and pages for fixtures and contact information. All images lack alt text. Every paragraph uses an identical inline style (style="font-size:16px;color:#333;") repeated directly on each <p> tag. The navigation is consistent across pages.

Write a one-paragraph evaluation that addresses all four criteria (FERR). For each criterion, give a judgement and evidence from the description.

Fitness for purpose: The site meets fitness for purpose — the navigation is consistent and all key pages (fixtures, contact) are present, fulfilling the club's requirements.

Efficient use of coding constructs: The site does not use coding constructs efficiently — the paragraph style is repeated inline on every <p> tag rather than being defined once as a CSS class rule. Defining a single .body-text class would eliminate this repetition.

Robustness: The site is not fully robust — all images lack alt text. If an image fails to load, or a screen reader user accesses the page, no description is provided. Alt text should be added to all images.

Readability: The code partially meets the readability criterion — the navigation structure is clear and consistent. However, the repeated inline styles add clutter that makes the HTML harder to read; moving these to a CSS class would improve readability as well as efficiency.

Each evaluation comment gives a judgement (meets / does not meet) and evidence from the description. Improvements are suggested where criteria are not met.

Common mistakes
✕
Confusing testing with evaluation. Testing finds errors during development (pass/fail for each feature). Evaluation judges quality after development is complete. An exam question that asks "evaluate the site" wants FERR judgements with evidence — not a test plan or a list of bugs found.
✕
Writing an evaluation comment without evidence. "The site meets fitness for purpose" with no supporting evidence is worth 0 marks. Every evaluation comment needs: a judgement + evidence from the code or site. "The site meets fitness for purpose because all three pages required in the original brief are present" is a 2-mark answer.
✕
Mixing up efficient use and readability. Efficient use is about code quantity — avoiding repetition, reusing classes, using external stylesheets. Readability is about code clarity — indentation, meaningful names, logical structure. They often overlap but they are different criteria and must be addressed separately.
✕
Only mentioning two or three criteria when the question asks for all four. SQA evaluation questions sometimes ask for all four criteria. If a question says "evaluate the site" with no restriction, address all of FERR. Check the mark allocation — a 4-mark question almost certainly requires all four criteria.
Exam tip

Memorise FERR — Fitness for purpose, Efficient use of coding constructs, Robustness, Readability. If an exam question asks you to "evaluate a website," these four criteria are your structure. Write one sentence per criterion: judgement + evidence.

For a 2-mark criterion question: "The site [meets/does not meet] [criterion] (1 mark) because [specific evidence from the code or site] (1 mark)." For 1-mark: just the judgement with a brief reason. Never write a criteria name without a judgement — "fitness for purpose" alone is worth nothing.

A common 4-mark question pattern: describe a site and ask you to evaluate it against two criteria. Pick the two criteria named in the question, give a judgement and evidence for each. If improvements are needed, suggest them — this often earns the second mark.

Task Set

Questions 1–3 are auto-checked. Questions 4–8 are self-marked — write your answer, then reveal the model answer to check your work.

1. Which evaluation criterion judges whether the original end-user requirements have been met? TYPE 1

2. What does robustness mean in the context of website evaluation? TYPE 1

3. What is the key difference between testing and evaluation? TYPE 1

4. For each of the four evaluation criteria, write one question a developer should ask when evaluating a website. (4 marks) TYPE 2

Fitness for purpose: "Does the site meet all the functional requirements identified in the analysis phase?" (1 mark)

Efficient use of coding constructs: "Are CSS styles reused with classes rather than repeated inline on every element?" (1 mark)

Robustness: "Do all links work and does the site display correctly in different browsers and screen sizes?" (1 mark)

Readability: "Is the code consistently indented and do class/id names clearly describe the element's purpose?" (1 mark)

5. A developer applies the same inline style to every paragraph on the site: <p style="color:#333;font-size:16px;">. This appears on 40 paragraphs across 8 pages. Which evaluation criterion does this affect? Explain why. (2 marks) TYPE 2

This is a problem for efficient use of coding constructs (1 mark).

Repeating identical inline styles on 40 elements is inefficient — the same code is written 40 times. A single CSS class rule (e.g. .body-text { color: #333; font-size: 16px; }) should be defined once in a stylesheet and applied to each paragraph, which is far more efficient and easier to update if the style ever needs to change (1 mark).

6. An image on a webpage has no alt attribute, and in some browsers it displays as a broken image icon. Which two evaluation criteria does this affect? Explain how each is affected. (3 marks) TYPE 2

Robustness (1 mark): the image displays as a broken icon in some browsers — the site does not handle this situation gracefully. An alt attribute would provide a text fallback so users still receive information about the image even when it fails to load (1 mark).

Fitness for purpose (1 mark): if the original analysis requirements included accessibility as a goal (e.g. "the site must be accessible to all users"), the missing alt text means this requirement is not met — screen reader users cannot access information about the image.

7. Original requirement: "the site must be suitable for primary school children." The finished site uses 8pt text and includes the phrase "this is an expository summary of our extracurricular activities." Write an evaluation comment for fitness for purpose. (2 marks) TYPE 2

The site does not meet fitness for purpose (1 mark). The original requirement stated the site must be suitable for primary school children, but the text is 8pt (too small for young readers) and uses complex vocabulary such as "expository summary" that primary-age pupils are unlikely to understand. The text should be enlarged to at least 16px and rewritten using simple, age-appropriate language (1 mark).

8. Write a full evaluation of the following website against all four criteria. Use the judgement + evidence pattern for each. (4 marks) TYPE 2

Site description: A website for a local library. Original requirements: provide opening times, a list of upcoming events, and a search page. All three pages are present. The HTML uses consistent indentation and semantic elements throughout. The same background-color is written as an inline style on every section element (repeated 12 times). Two images on the events page have no alt text. The site was tested in Chrome only.

Fitness for purpose: The site meets fitness for purpose — all three required pages (opening times, events, search) are present as specified in the original requirements (1 mark).

Efficient use of coding constructs: The site does not use coding constructs efficiently — the same background-color is written as an inline style on 12 separate elements rather than being defined once as a CSS class rule; this should be refactored to avoid repetition (1 mark).

Robustness: The site is not fully robust — two images on the events page lack alt text, so they provide no information if images fail to load or for screen reader users; additionally, testing in Chrome only does not confirm the site works in Firefox or Safari (1 mark).

Readability: The code meets the readability criterion — consistent indentation and the use of semantic HTML elements make the structure clear and easy to understand (1 mark).
Teacher notes — Shift+T to hide

Suggested timing: 1-hour single period. This is a concept-heavy lesson with relatively little new technical content — it consolidates prior learning and frames it as quality judgements.

Opening: Write FERR on the board and ask pupils to guess what each letter stands for before explaining. This activates prior knowledge and creates a hook. Reveal one letter at a time.

Model Q8 as a class: Q8 is exactly the format of a SQA evaluation question. Before pupils attempt it individually, do one full worked example as a class on the projector — read the site description together, pick one criterion, write the judgement + evidence sentence together, then let pupils do the remaining three independently. Seeing the format modelled once significantly improves answer quality.

Common error to address: Pupils often say "the site is good" or "the site meets efficiency" without any evidence. Spend 5 minutes on the pattern: judgement + because + evidence. Write it on the board. Mark an anonymised example (from prior years if available) and show pupils the difference between a 0-mark and 2-mark answer for the same criterion.

FERR vs SDD evaluation: SDD evaluation uses the same four criteria. Pupils studying both units may notice this — reinforce that the criteria are the same but applied to code/programs (SDD) versus websites (WDD).