> **DRAFT** — under teacher review. # The Annotation Verb Ladder — Identify → Describe → Document → Explain The Hamilton and Alexandra College · Year 12 · 2026 The C5-2 Annotation validation is a 30-minute written test under **no AI, no internet** conditions. You bring in only your printed design log / photo journal. You receive a 6-slot sheet, and each slot is locked to a rubric band by a single verb. The problem most students don't see coming: they write confident-sounding notes that secretly stay at "identify" level — and only discover this during the timed session, when it is too late. This page teaches the ladder by showing you one concrete design-log entry rewritten up all four rungs. --- ## The four rungs ```mermaid flowchart BT A["**Identify** · band 3–4<br/>Name the principle/characteristic"] --> B["**Describe** · band 5–6<br/>Say HOW it is applied — appearance AND functionality"] B --> C["**Document** · band 7–8<br/>Cite specific journal evidence:<br/>user-test note · constraint · iteration"] C --> D["**Explain** · band 9–10<br/>Argue what breaks if you remove the choice,<br/>or the trade-off between two principles/characteristics"] ``` Each rung adds something the rung below does not have. You cannot skip rungs. --- ## The same entry, rewritten four times The example entry: **high contrast on the login button** (a real design-log entry — Design Log #3, 15 April). | Rung | Band | The annotation | |------|------|----------------| | **Identify** | 3–4 | "I applied contrast to my login button." | | **Describe** | 5–6 | "I applied contrast (design principle) by changing the login button from light grey to a high-visibility blue (#1A73E8 on white). This affects appearance by making the button stand out from surrounding text, and affects functionality by directing user attention to the primary action on the screen." | | **Document** | 7–8 | "I applied contrast as above. In Design Log #3 (15 April), I recorded that during a user test, two of three testers initially clicked the wrong element; after increasing the colour contrast ratio to 4.8:1, all three testers clicked the correct button on the first attempt. The iteration from grey to blue was a direct response to that test note." | | **Explain** | 9–10 | "I applied contrast as above (Design Log #3, 15 April). If I removed the high-contrast blue and returned to grey, the button would lose its affordance (UX characteristic) — users would not perceive it as the primary interactive element, increasing error rate and reducing usability (UX characteristic). There is a trade-off: high contrast dominates the visual field, potentially reducing balance (design principle) on the page. I accepted that trade-off because the primary function of the login screen is a single action, so guiding attention outweighs distributing it evenly." | Notice what each rung adds: - **Describe** adds: *how* (appearance + functionality), not just the name. - **Document** adds: a *specific journal entry reference* with a user-test result or iteration. - **Explain** adds: *what would break* without the choice, or a *named trade-off* between two principles/characteristics. --- ## The 6-slot structure Your annotation sheet has six slots with fixed verb targets: | Slot | What you write | Target band | |------|----------------|-------------| | 1 | **Identify** a design principle visible in one journal entry | 3–4 | | 2 | **Identify** a UX characteristic in a different entry | 3–4 | | 3 | **Describe** how a principle is applied — appearance AND functionality | 5–6 | | 4 | **Document** how a UX characteristic is applied — citing journal evidence | 7–8 | | 5 | **Explain** how a *selected* principle AND UX characteristic combine in one design choice | 9–10 | | 6 | **Explain** a tension between two principles or characteristics, and the trade-off you accepted | 9–10 | > [!TIP] > **Slot 5 is the hardest.** It requires ONE annotation entry that names a design principle (from the list of 7) AND a UX characteristic (from the list of 4) and shows how they interact. Writing two design principles will leave the slot empty regardless of the quality of your writing. See [Design Principles vs UX Characteristics](/sd/C05/Design%20Principles%20vs%20UX%20Characteristics). --- ## Build the design log NOW Aim for **4 or more entries** before the validation. Every entry is a potential annotation source — you can only cite entries that exist in your printed journal. Each entry should include: - The date and which design artefact you were working on - The design principle or UX characteristic you applied (use the exact study-design name) - A before/after description (sketch, screenshot, or written description) - Any user-test result, feedback, or constraint that influenced the decision > [!NOTE] > An entry that documents an iteration — something you changed in response to feedback — is more valuable than an entry describing a first-pass decision, because it gives you the "document" rung automatically. --- ## Common mistakes ### Mistake 1: Notes that stay at "identify" > ~~"I applied contrast to make my design look better."~~ This names the principle but says nothing about how it was applied (appearance or functionality), cites no journal entry, and gives no reason. It scores at most band 4. ### Mistake 2: No journal entry reference > ~~"I increased contrast throughout my design."~~ Generic statements without a specific entry reference do not score under the document or explain bands. The marker needs to know *which* entry — date, entry number, or both. ### Mistake 3: Describing the feature instead of the principle > ~~"I made the button blue."~~ This describes a visual feature. An annotation must name the *principle or characteristic* the feature demonstrates and explain *why* that principle is at work — not just what the feature looks like. --- ## 🎬 Watch > [!NOTE] > Video coming soon. **🎯 Watch for:** how the same design-log entry sounds completely different at each rung — and what one specific addition takes you from "identify" to "explain" in your annotation. --- ## Check Your Understanding 1. A student writes: "I used alignment to organise my navigation bar." Which rung is this on, and what is the single most important thing they need to add to reach the next rung? >| **Rung: Identify (band 3–4).** To reach Describe (band 5–6), they need to say HOW alignment was applied — what changed in the appearance of the navigation bar, and how that affects functionality (e.g. "users can scan menu items in a single left-to-right sweep"). 2. Slot 5 requires both a design principle and a UX characteristic in one annotation. Write the names of all 7 design principles and all 4 UX characteristics from memory — then check yourself against [Design Principles vs UX Characteristics](/sd/C05/Design%20Principles%20vs%20UX%20Characteristics). >| **Design principles (7):** alignment, balance, contrast, space, text formatting, usability, navigation. **UX characteristics (4):** affordance, interoperability, security, usability. Note that **usability appears in both lists** — they mean different things in each context. 3. You are writing a Slot 6 "explain" annotation about a trade-off between contrast and balance. What two things must your annotation include that a "describe" annotation would not? >| (1) A **specific journal entry reference** showing where the decision was made (date / entry number / artefact). (2) An argument about the **trade-off** — what you gain from high contrast, what you sacrifice in balance, and why you chose to accept that cost. Simply saying both principles are present is not enough. --- ## See also - [Design Principles vs UX Characteristics](/sd/C05/Design%20Principles%20vs%20UX%20Characteristics) - [C05 Resources](/sd/Resources/C05-Resources) --- ← Back to [C05 Home](/sd/C05/C05-home) · [VCE Software Development Hub](/sd/VCE%20Software%20Development%20Hub)