評分標準 / Judging Criteria

本賽事評分採用 0-100 分制，評審團將從多維度綜合考量參賽者的設計作品與理念，具體評分細則如下
 

1. 設計完整性（40%）

核心考察參賽者對設計邏輯與落地性的把控能力：

• 方案規範度：設計圖稿（手繪 / 電子）是否清晰標註尺寸、材質、功能細節，文字說明是否邏輯通暢、重點明確；

• 功能可行性：產品 / 空間 / 服裝等設計是否符合實用需求（如產品使用場景匹配、空間動線合理、服裝穿脫便利），避免脫離現實的空想；

• 細節精準度：工藝手法（如服裝縫合構想、產品組裝邏輯）、視覺元素（如色彩搭配、圖形比例）是否精確協調，體現設計嚴謹性。
   

2. 創新與獨特性（30%）

聚焦參賽者的創意思維與差异化表達能力：

• 理念新穎度：是否突破常規思路（如傳統工藝的現代轉化、解決生活痛點的新方案），提出具有辨識度的設計概念；

• 形式獨特性：視覺風格（如插畫風格、服裝廓形）、材料運用（如環保材料創新、廢棄物改造）是否體現個人風格，避免同質化；

• 價值延伸性：設計是否兼具額外意義（如文化傳承、環保理念、關懷弱勢群體），展現超出基礎功能的深度思考。
   

3. 整體呈現（20%）

衡量參賽者的設計表達與綜合審美能力：

• 視覺協調度：設計整體（如產品造型與功能統一、空間色彩與氛圍匹配、服裝款式與主題契合）是否風格一致，無割裂感；

• 展示清晰度：作品呈現（圖稿 / 實物 / 視頻）是否能完整傳達設計核心，讓評審快速理解理念與細節；

• 審美素養：對設計風格（如復古、未來、簡約）的把控是否到位，色彩、比例、質感搭配是否符合大眾審美或有合理的個性化表達。
   

4. 主題與能力匹配度（10%）

關注設計難度與參賽者水平的契合性：

• 難度適配性：能否依據自身設計基礎選擇合適項目（如低齡段避免過於複雜的機械產品設計，高年齡段不局限於簡單圖案繪製），既不輕易應付，也不盲目挑戰超出能力範圍的任務；

• 優勢發揮度：設計是否能突出個人長項（如擅長繪畫者強化視覺傳達，擅長手工者強化工藝細節），達到「以設計揚長」的效果。
   

評審機制 / Judging Mechanism

• 每件參賽作品將由 2 位專業評審獨立評分，取綜合成績作為最終結果，確保評分的客觀性與公平性；

• 評審團成員涵蓋本協會資深設計顧問、權威藝術教育機構代表及設計領域資深從業者（如產品設計師、服裝設計師、空間規劃師），兼具學術性與實踐經驗，以專業視角挖掘每位參賽者的創新閃光點。
   

Judging Criteria

This competition uses a 0-100 point scoring system. The judging panel will comprehensively evaluate the participants' design works and concepts from multiple dimensions. The specific scoring criteria are as follows:
 

1. Design Integrity (40%)

The core focus is on the participant's ability to control design logic and practicality:

• Specification of the Proposal: Whether hand-drawn/digital design drawings clearly mark dimensions, materials, and functional details; whether the text description is logically coherent and focuses on key points;

• Functional Feasibility: Whether the design of products/spaces/clothing meets practical needs (e.g., product matching usage scenarios, reasonable space circulation, easy wearing of clothing), avoiding unrealistic fantasies;

• Precision of Details: Whether craftsmanship (e.g., clothing stitching concept, product assembly logic) and visual elements (e.g., color matching, graphic proportion) are accurately coordinated, reflecting design rigor.
   

2. Innovation and Uniqueness (30%)

Focusing on the participant's creative thinking and differentiated expression ability:

• Novelty of Concept: Whether it breaks conventional thinking (e.g., modern transformation of traditional crafts, new solutions to life pain points) and proposes a design concept with distinctiveness;

• Uniqueness of Form: Whether the visual style (e.g., illustration style, clothing silhouette) and material application (e.g., innovative eco-friendly materials, waste transformation) reflect personal style and avoid homogenization;

• Extended Value: Whether the design has additional significance (e.g., cultural inheritance, environmental protection concept, care for vulnerable groups), showing in-depth thinking beyond basic functions.
   

3. Overall Presentation (20%)

Assessing the participant's design expression and comprehensive aesthetic ability:

• Visual Coordination: Whether the overall design (e.g., unity of product shape and function, matching of space color and atmosphere, consistency of clothing style and theme) has a consistent style without a sense of fragmentation;

• Clarity of Presentation: Whether the work presentation (drawings/physical objects/videos) can fully convey the core of the design, allowing judges to quickly understand the concept and details;

• Aesthetic Literacy: Whether the grasp of design styles (e.g., retro, futuristic, minimalist) is in place; whether the matching of color, proportion, and texture conforms to public aesthetics or has reasonable personalized expression.
   

4. Alignment of Theme and Ability (10%)

Focuses on the compatibility between design difficulty and the participant's ability:

• Difficulty Adaptation: Whether the participant selects appropriate projects based on their design foundation (e.g., younger participants avoid overly complex mechanical product design, older participants do not limit themselves to simple pattern drawing), neither perfunctorily nor blindly challenging tasks beyond their capabilities;

• Strengths Utilization: Whether the design can highlight personal strengths (e.g., those good at painting emphasize visual communication, those good at handwork emphasize craftsmanship details), achieving the effect of "highlighting strengths through design."
   

Judging Mechanism

• Each entry will be independently scored by two professional judges, with the final result determined by the composite score, ensuring the objectivity and fairness of the evaluation;

• The judging panel comprises senior design advisors of this association, representatives from authoritative art education institutions, and seasoned practitioners in the design field (e.g., product designers, fashion designers, space planners), combining academic expertise with practical experience to identify the innovative strengths of each participant through a professional lens.