Time	Group Name	Technical implementation J1	Tech J2	Aesthetics  and design J1	Design J2	Data story telling J1	Story J2	total	norm total	Star	Comments
Juror Team 1	8:30 PM	Group 1	4	3.5	4	4	4	4	23.5	21.9		Clear Dashboard with reasonble choice of visuals
Breakout Room  1		Group 1	4	3.5	4	4	4	4	23.5	21.9
	8:45 PM	Group 2	5	4.5	5	4.5	4	4	27	25.1		Sophisticated designs but more linkage between visualizations can be included
		Group 2	5	4.5	5	4.5	4	4	27	25.1
	9:00 PM	Group 3	5	4	4	3.5	4	4	24.5	22.8		Color coding can be improved
		Group 3	5	4	4	3.5	4	4	24.5	22.8
	9:15 PM	Group 4	3	3	5	3.5	4	4	22.5	20.9		Parallel coordinates paths are cluttered, color coding are not consistent across visuals Jun: I think I have seen some very similar work before, although the student claimed that everything was built from scratch
		Group 4	3	3	5	3.5	4	4	22.5	20.9
	9:30 PM	Group 5	5	4.5	3	3.5	4	4.5	24.5	22.8		Interesting dataset, some interesting insights are generated from the visualizations
		Group 5	5	4.5	3	3.5	4	4.5	24.5	22.8
	9:45 PM	Group 6	4	3.5	4	3.5	4	4	23	21.4		The linkage between plots can be enhanced
		Group 6	4	3.5	4	3.5	4	4	23	21.4
	10:00 PM	Group 7	4	3.5	4	3.5	4	4	23	21.4		Linkage between plots are good. No legend for the sunburst plot
		Group 7	4	3.5	4	3.5	4	4	23	21.4
	10:15 PM	Group 8	3	3.5	4	4	4	3.5	22	20.5		Lack of legend in plots, can further work on the explaining the components
		Group 8	3	3.5	4	4	4	3.5	22	20.5
	10:30 PM	Group 9	5	5	5	5	5	4.5	29.5	27.5	Star	Beautiful dashboard with sufficient interactions
		Group 9	5	5	5	5	5	4.5	29.5	27.5	Star
	10:45 PM	Group 10	4	4	4	4	4	4	24	22.3		Good overall, can be improved aesthetically
		Group 10	4	4	4	4	4	4	24	22.3
									24.4	1.1
Juror Team 2	8:30 PM	Group 11	5	4	4.5	3	4	3	23.5	21.7		Good: Smooth interactivity and multiple visualization types. Cohesive handling of dataset. Clicks/selections persisted across all visualizations. Could improve: Treemap unnecessary; lacks color legends.
Breakout Room  2		Group 11	5	4	4.5	3	4	3	23.5	21.7
	8:45 PM	Group 12	3	5	4	4.5	3	4	23.5	21.7		Consistent data presentation and colors.
	9:00 PM	Group 13	3	3	3.5	3	3	3	18.5	17.0		Good data analysis. The data story telling could be a little more clear.
	9:15 PM	Group 14	4.5	4.5	4	4.5	4.5	5	27	24.9	Star	Good understanding of their data. Well implemented, Presentation should show off a little bit more on their data story.
		Group 14	4.5	4.5	4	4.5	4.5	5	27	24.9	Star
	9:30 PM	Group 15	4.5	4.5	5	4.5	5	5	28.5	26.3	Star	Excellent narration and data presentation. Good insight into their data and their conclusions did make good sense.
		Group 15	4.5	4.5	5	4.5	5	5	28.5	26.3	Star
	9:45 PM	Group 16	3	3.5	3.5	4	3	3	20	18.4		Nice implementation technically, but I did see a disconnect between their dashboard and their data conclusions.
		Group 16	3	3.5	3.5	4	3	3	20	18.4
	10:00 PM	Group 17	4	4	3.5	3.5	4	3	22	20.3		Good Plotly dashboard with some interesting data insights coming up in the discussion.
	10:15 PM	Group 18	4	4	4	4	4	4	24	22.1		Nice aesthetics, nice visual design and interactions. Would prefer if events connected accross the dataset.
	10:30 PM	Group 19	3.5	4	3.5	4.5	4	4	23.5	21.7		Good technical implementation.
		Group 19	3.5	4	3.5	4.5	4	4.5	24	22.1
	10:45 PM	Group 20	5	5	5	5	5	5	30	27.6	Star	Wow! Good technical work. Nice event binding, great visuals! Also spent time on data collection and processing. Memorable presentation.
		Group 20	5	5	5	5	5	5	30	27.6	Star
									24.6	1.1
Juror Team 3	8:30 PM	Group 21	4	4	3	4	3	4	22	22.2		No clear analysis - take home message, data not used properly
Breakout Room  3		Group 21	4	4	3	4	3	4	22	22.2
	8:45 PM	Group 22	4	4	4	4	3	4	23	23.2		Good interactive components but complex to interpret
		Group 22	4	4	4	4	3	4	23	23.2
	9:00 PM	Group 23	3	3	3	3	2	2	16	16.2		There was no story to tell, 1 interaction only.
		Group 23	3	3	3	3	2	2	16	16.2
	9:15 PM	Group 24	4	4	3	4	3	3	21	21.2		Good use case. Too much technical text
		Group 24	4	4	3	4	3	3	21	21.2
	9:30 PM	Group 25	4	4	3	4	3	3	21	21.2		good interaction and design, too many plots/tabs
		Group 25	4	4	3	4	3	3	21	21.2
	9:45 PM	Group 26	4	4	4	4	4	4	24	24.2		Asthetically pleasing charts, but only 3 plots so not much. Good data story telling
	10:00 PM	Group 27	4	5	5	5	5	4	28	28.3	Star	Good story telling and useful insights drawn
		Group 27	4	5	5	5	5	4	28	28.3	Star
	10:15 PM	Group 28	4	4	4	4	4	4	24	24.2		Good use case, design. Limited interactions
		Group 28	4	4	4	4	4	4	24	24.2
	10:30 PM	Group 29	5	4	4	5	3	3	24	24.2	Star	Good aesthetic and design, but too narrow use case
	10:45 PM	Group 30	5	4	4	4	3	3	23	23.2		Good aesthetic and design, lacked analysis, and broader interactions
		Group 30	5	4	4	4	3	3	23	23.2
									22.4	1.0
Juror Team 4	8:30 PM	Group 31	4.5	5	4	5	4	4	26.5	28.0	Star	Nice dashboard, but it's difficult to find the exact team name, player name, etc.; Lots of good interactions; clean and comprehensive dashboard with nice story telling
Breakout Room  4	8:45 PM	Group 32	3	4	3.5	4	4	4	22.5	23.8		The geo map doesn’t have a zooming feature, so it’s very difficult to find and select the exact state. Brushing is required in some parts but is not implemented; Good story telling with meaningful conclusions drawn from the data
		Group 32	3	4	3.5	4	4	4	22.5	23.8
	9:00 PM	Group 33	4	4	3	5	4	5	25	26.4	Star	The map doesn’t have a zooming feature, so it’s very difficult to find and select the exact country; Good design choices - intuitive; Meaningful observations made that highlight the patterns in the data
		Group 33	4	4	3	5	4	5	25	26.4	Star
	9:15 PM	Group 34	3	4	3	3	3	3	19	20.1		Only one color is used in the map, so it’s very difficult to distinguish. The pie chart is not useful; another chart type may be more effective; Could have broken down by time; Could include all 5 plots at once - no need for a toggle feature;
	9:30 PM	Group 35	4.5	5	5	3.5	4.5	3	25.5	26.9	Star	Good dashboard with smooth interactivity.; Radar chart is a little confusing;  Story telling could have more conclusions;
		Group 35	4.5	5	5	3.5	4.5	3	25.5	26.9	Star
	9:45 PM	Group 36	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.0		Not Present
	10:00 PM	Group 37	3	4	3	2	3	3	18	19.0		Cluster visualization is not implemented. Numbers and letters are very difficult to visualize; The story telling could be more comprehensive; Design was lacking; Had some good interactions
		Group 37	3	4	3	2	3	3	18	19.0
	10:15 PM	Group 38	4	4	4	3	4	4	23	24.3		It's difficult to see the naming in the PCA Biplot due to overlapping. The geo map doesn’t have a zooming feature, so it’s very difficult to find and select the exact state.; Good story telling; Dashboard constructed to clearly draw detailed conclusions
	10:30 PM	Group 39	4	4	4	4	4.5	4	24.5	25.9		PCP is not brushable. Its difficult to understand few observation without it.; Good user interactions; Clear story telling
		Group 39	4	4	4	4	4.5	4	24.5	25.9
	10:45 PM	Group 40	4	4	3.5	3.5	4	3.5	22.5	23.8		Axis naming with values overlaps a lot. It’s very difficult to distinguish.; Good linkage between plots; No story, just observations;
									21.5	0.9
Juror Team 5	8:30 PM	Group 41	2	1	2	1	3	2	11	13.1		just a pca plot, but did complete survey for dog breed
Breakout Room  5	8:45 PM	Group 42	4	4	3	2	4	4	21	25.0	Star	insightful story into swimming olympic games
	9:00 PM	Group 43	3	4	3	4	3	3	20	23.8		The dataset is insufficient. More evaluation metric can help improve the story telling
	9:15 PM	Group 44	3	3	2	2	2		12	14.3		The scatter plots are less informative
	9:30 PM	Group 45	4	4	3	3	3	2	19	22.6		good inforgraphic + a chat bot from google gemini
		Group 45	4	4	3	3	3	2	19	22.6
	9:45 PM	Group 50	3	3	1	3	3	2	15	17.8		poor color selection and too much visual clutter in scatterplot
		Group 50	3	3	1	3	3	2	15	17.8
	10:00 PM	Group 51	4	4	3	2	4	4	21	25.0		Good interaction and helpful visualization on decision tree
		Group 51	4	4	3	2	4	4	21	25.0
	10:15 PM	Group 55	4	4	3	3	4	4	22	26.1		The linked interactions and various colormap design are useful
	10:30 PM	Group 60	4	4	4	4	4	4	24	28.5	Star	interesting topic and good story telling of pokemon
		Group 60	4	4	4	4	4	4	24	28.5	Star
	10:45 PM	Group 68	4	4	3	3	3	4	21	25.0	Star	Good visualization design and interesting topic
		Group 68	4	4	3	3	3	4	21	25.0	Star
									19	0.8
Juror Team 6	8:30 PM	Group 69	3	3	3	4	4	4	21	19.8		less technical but clean and less interactions between charts
Breakout Room  6		Group 69	3	3	3	4	4	4	21	19.8		not a lot of interaction between different elements
	8:45 PM	Group 70	4	4	4	4	5	5	26	24.5		Interaction from geo map reflected on others,  Good Use Case for Startups - Sounds interesting, Bar chart could have been inteactive too but not implemented,  PCP is good - edge bunding and others implemented, Decent design
		Group 70	4	4	4	4	5	5	26	24.5		Great story telling/ they observed a lot of insightfull correlations
	9:00 PM	Group 71	4	5	3	3	3	3	21	19.8		Interesting charts unique ones that help with learning about data. Overal design is decent- charts are a bit crowded but they do have the option to filter/zoom in
		Group 72	5	4	5	4	5	5	28	26.4	Star	Intresting dataset and story telling- good choice of colormaps-good interaction between elements
	9:15 PM	Group 77	4	5	3	3	4	4	23	21.7		Nice interactions and good use of charts. Color choice could have been better
		Group 77	4	5	3	3	4	4	23	21.7
	9:30 PM	Group 90	4	4	4	5	4	4	25	23.6		Simple but elegant design, less technical but good design
	9:45 PM	Group 91	4.5	5	5	4	4.5	4	27	25.5		Good interactions and functions to support charts. Whole page reloads rather refreshing d3 components would make it more User friendly
	10:00 PM	Group 96	4.5	4	5	4	5	5	27.5	25.9		Country names shown on top of map would have been better
	10:15 PM	Group 98	4	3	4.5	4	4.5	4	24	22.6		Less technical charts
	10:30 PM	Group 99	3.5	3	4	4	3.5	3.5	21.5	20.3		Some interactions are buggy and not complete. eg(half of the chart is hidden and labels are unclear)
	10:45 PM	Group 100	4	3	4	3	4.5	4	22.5	21.2		Not implemented on one screen. Good story but less technical, Integrated many datasets, very informative
									24.0	1.1