These criteria serve as a framework for evaluating Bachelor’s and Master’s theses in Intermedia Design and reflect my specific evaluation criteria within the field of information design. They aim to make transparent which aspects are considered in the assessment and how design, conceptual, and theoretical achievements are evaluated. The weighting of individual criteria may vary depending on the project. What remains central is the interplay between the different dimensions.

1. Topic, Research Question, and Relevance

• Is a clear research question formulated?
• Is there a coherent and comprehensible objective?
• Is the topic relevant (in terms of design, society, technology, or art)?
• Does the work demonstrate independence or originality?

Goal: A precise and well-reflected foundation for the project. What new paths does the work explore, and how are these articulated?

2. Concept and Methodology

• Is the approach structured and comprehensible?
• Are appropriate methods applied (research, experimentation, iteration, etc.)?
• Is there a clear relationship between the research question and the methodology?
• Is the process documented and reflected upon?

Goal: A convincing and transparent working process.

3. Design Quality

• Formal quality (typography, image, space, code, data, etc.)
• Consistency of the design
• Level of care and precision in execution
• Appropriateness of the chosen media

Goal: A precise, deliberate, reflective, and compelling design outcome.

4. Relationship Between Concept and Design

• Is the research question addressed and made visible through design?
• Does a productive dialogue emerge between content and form?
• Are design and concept mutually constitutive?

Goal: No separation between thinking and making, but their integration.

5. Independence and Artistic Position

• Does the work develop its own position?
• Does it go beyond mere application?
• Are decisions made consciously and justified?

Goal: A clearly articulated design or artistic position.

6. Use of References

• Are relevant references included?
• Are they properly cited?
• Are they critically engaged with or only superficially used?

Goal: A well-founded contextual grounding of the work.

7. Reflection and Theoretical Framing

• Is the process critically examined?
• Can the work be situated within broader contexts?
• Is design understood as a form of knowledge production?

Goal: The ability for self-reflection and contextualization.

8. Outcome / Implementation

• Quality of the final output (e.g., book, installation, interface, film, etc.)
• Appropriateness of the chosen format
• Coherence between process and result

Goal: A convincing and internally coherent outcome.

9. Overall Assessment

The final evaluation is not based on isolated criteria but on the interaction of all aspects:

• How convincing is the work as a whole?
• Does it fulfill its own ambitions?
• Does it demonstrate development, depth, and precision?

Notes on Evaluation

• An excellent project (1.0–1.3) demonstrates a strong integration of concept, design, and reflection.
• A good project (1.7–2.3) is visually and technically convincing but shows minor weaknesses in conceptual depth.
• A satisfactory project (2.7–3.3) meets basic requirements but remains underdeveloped in several areas.
• Projects below this range exhibit significant deficiencies in key criteria.

Final Remark

Design is not merely a formal practice. Final projects in information design are understood as a synthesis of thinking, making, and reflecting. Strong work emerges where these dimensions are tightly interwoven.