Visual Literacy

Criteria for Evaluating Visual Literacy of Newspaper
NETS-T (1) (5)

Criteria

D

C

B

A

Readability of document Text areas are very hard to read either due to font used, font color or placement of fonts..
Some text is hard to read.

Headings are not easy to recognize

More font variety is needed or too much font variety is used.

Text is difficult to read in a one or two places.

Headings are recognizeable.

Good balance of font styles and types

Headings identifiable

Easily readable.

Good balance of font styles and types

Text is clear and easy to read-even for aging faculty.

Alignment of text, graphics, fields Poor alignment of fields. Graphics are all in-line or too close to text. A few text fields are not aligned. Not many text fields present and they all look alike. Graphics are too close or far from text. Text fields are almost all aligned.
Some graphics are too close to text . Text fields are all aligned to add order to page. Graphics are strategically placed for effect. Graphics have some space separating them from text.

Good use of space
Either big empty spaces or lack of any so text and pictures run into each other.

Many areas of spacing could be better. Either text too close to each other or graphics or graphics to close or far from text or each other.

Some areas spacing could be better. Text fields not always even.

Not too much white space for no reason but use of space to organize ideas and information.

Quality and applicability of graphics to text
Only clip art used, not sized well, not particularly relevant to text.
Copyright ignored

Graphics sometimes relate to text, some quality could be better. Copyright ignored.

Most graphics relate to text. Copyright laws respected.

Graphics relate to text and are of good quality. Copyright laws respected.

Overall Appearance
Shows little planning.

Poor organization

Visually not easy to read.

Doesn't look like a newspaper.

Document is readable but boring to look at.

No individuality noted.

Little attention to detail

Document is planned carefully but conventional.

Graphics could be better.

Layout conventional

Some attention to detail

This looks like a colorful, well designed newspaper.

Creativity is evident.

Details attended to.

See example of A for overall appearance.

Criteria	D	C	B	A
Readability of document	Text areas are very hard to read either due to font used, font color or placement of fonts..	Some text is hard to read. Headings are not easy to recognize More font variety is needed or too much font variety is used.	Text is difficult to read in a one or two places. Headings are recognizeable. Good balance of font styles and types	Headings identifiable Easily readable. Good balance of font styles and types Text is clear and easy to read-even for aging faculty.
Alignment of text, graphics, fields	Poor alignment of fields. Graphics are all in-line or too close to text.	A few text fields are not aligned. Not many text fields present and they all look alike. Graphics are too close or far from text.	Text fields are almost all aligned. Some graphics are too close to text .	Text fields are all aligned to add order to page. Graphics are strategically placed for effect. Graphics have some space separating them from text.
Good use of space	Either big empty spaces or lack of any so text and pictures run into each other.	Many areas of spacing could be better. Either text too close to each other or graphics or graphics to close or far from text or each other.	Some areas spacing could be better. Text fields not always even.	Not too much white space for no reason but use of space to organize ideas and information.
Quality and applicability of graphics to text	Only clip art used, not sized well, not particularly relevant to text. Copyright ignored	Graphics sometimes relate to text, some quality could be better. Copyright ignored.	Most graphics relate to text. Copyright laws respected.	Graphics relate to text and are of good quality. Copyright laws respected.
Overall Appearance	Shows little planning. Poor organization Visually not easy to read. Doesn't look like a newspaper.	Document is readable but boring to look at. No individuality noted. Little attention to detail	Document is planned carefully but conventional. Graphics could be better. Layout conventional Some attention to detail	This looks like a colorful, well designed newspaper. Creativity is evident. Details attended to. See example of A for overall appearance.