Expert Questionnaire for Free-Form Prompt Evaluation

Please evaluate the prompt-image correspondence for this image across 12 dimensions. Use a 1–5 Likert scale based on clarity of prompts, semantic accuracy, aesthetic quality, and design value.

  • 1 ⭐️ = Very Poor / Strong mismatch

  • 5 ⭐️ = Excellent / Fully aligned

Each criterion includes an English description. If a dimension does not apply, feel free to skip it. Thank you for your expert insights!

1-1. Terminology Clarity.
Are the prompts described clearly, professionally, and unambiguously? Can the reader quickly grasp the design intent after reading?
1-2. Semantic Coverage.
Do the prompts cover the key semantic elements that should appear in the generated image (e.g., structure, material, dynamics)? Are there any missing aspects?
1-3. Prompt–Image Traceability.
Which visual elements in the image can be directly traced back to the prompts? Is the mapping clear and corresponding?
1-4. Structural / Constructive Plausibility.
Are the elevations, connection types, and scale levels in the image aligned with basic architectural logic (even in imaginative or conceptual forms)?
1-5. Legibility of Responsive Mechanism.
Are dynamic, adjustable, or sensory elements in the image identifiable as responsive logics? Or are they merely decorative features?
1-6. Material & Surface Fidelity.
Are the materials, textures, and thickness relationships credible? Do they align with the material language implied in the prompts?
1-7. Compositional Order & Proportion Control.
Are grids, repetitions, rhythms, and window proportions harmonized in terms of overall or partial spatial scale?
1-8. Stylistic Coherence.
Is the overall visual aesthetic coherent (e.g., in terms of color, geometric language, and detail integrity)? Are there stylistic conflicts?
1-9. Visual Rhythmic Quality.
Do repetitions, sequences, folds, or openings create visual rhythms and kinetic attraction? Are these aligned with prompts involving “rhythm”, “sequence”, or “kinetic”?
1-10. Overall Aesthetic Quality.
Overall impression: Does the image demonstrate an integrated and aesthetic design quality?
1-11. Aesthetic Merit & Design Value.
Is the image valuable as a conceptual design proposal? Could it inspire further architectural development?
1-12. Contextual Appropriateness (if applicable).
When the prompts include urban/climatic context, do the results align with the specified conditions (e.g., scale, climate adaptability, urban morphology)?
2-1. Terminology Clarity.
Are the prompts described clearly, professionally, and unambiguously? Can the reader quickly grasp the design intent after reading?
2-2. Semantic Coverage.
Do the prompts cover the key semantic elements that should appear in the generated image (e.g., structure, material, dynamics)? Are there any missing aspects?
2-3. Prompt–Image Traceability.
Which visual elements in the image can be directly traced back to the prompts? Is the mapping clear and corresponding?
2-4. Structural / Constructive Plausibility.
Are the elevations, connection types, and scale levels in the image aligned with basic architectural logic (even in imaginative or conceptual forms)?
2-5. Legibility of Responsive Mechanism.
Are dynamic, adjustable, or sensory elements in the image identifiable as responsive logics? Or are they merely decorative features?
2-6. Material & Surface Fidelity.
Are the materials, textures, and thickness relationships credible? Do they align with the material language implied in the prompts?
2-7. Compositional Order & Proportion Control.
Are grids, repetitions, rhythms, and window proportions harmonized in terms of overall or partial spatial scale?
2-8. Stylistic Coherence.
Is the overall visual aesthetic coherent (e.g., in terms of color, geometric language, and detail integrity)? Are there stylistic conflicts?
2-9. Visual Rhythmic Quality.
Do repetitions, sequences, folds, or openings create visual rhythms and kinetic attraction? Are these aligned with prompts involving “rhythm”, “sequence”, or “kinetic”?
2-10. Overall Aesthetic Quality.
Overall impression: Does the image demonstrate an integrated and aesthetic design quality?
2-11. Aesthetic Merit & Design Value.
Is the image valuable as a conceptual design proposal? Could it inspire further architectural development?
2-12. Contextual Appropriateness (if applicable).
When the prompts include urban/climatic context, do the results align with the specified conditions (e.g., scale, climate adaptability, urban morphology)?
3-1. Terminology Clarity.
Are the prompts described clearly, professionally, and unambiguously? Can the reader quickly grasp the design intent after reading?
3-2. Semantic Coverage.
Do the prompts cover the key semantic elements that should appear in the generated image (e.g., structure, material, dynamics)? Are there any missing aspects?
3-3. Prompt–Image Traceability.
Which visual elements in the image can be directly traced back to the prompts? Is the mapping clear and corresponding?
3-4. Structural / Constructive Plausibility.
Are the elevations, connection types, and scale levels in the image aligned with basic architectural logic (even in imaginative or conceptual forms)?
3-5. Legibility of Responsive Mechanism.
Are dynamic, adjustable, or sensory elements in the image identifiable as responsive logics? Or are they merely decorative features?
3-6. Material & Surface Fidelity.
Are the materials, textures, and thickness relationships credible? Do they align with the material language implied in the prompts?
3-7. Compositional Order & Proportion Control.
Are grids, repetitions, rhythms, and window proportions harmonized in terms of overall or partial spatial scale?
3-8. Stylistic Coherence.
Is the overall visual aesthetic coherent (e.g., in terms of color, geometric language, and detail integrity)? Are there stylistic conflicts?
3-9. Visual Rhythmic Quality.
Do repetitions, sequences, folds, or openings create visual rhythms and kinetic attraction? Are these aligned with prompts involving “rhythm”, “sequence”, or “kinetic”?
3-10. Overall Aesthetic Quality.
Overall impression: Does the image demonstrate an integrated and aesthetic design quality?
3-11. Aesthetic Merit & Design Value.
Is the image valuable as a conceptual design proposal? Could it inspire further architectural development?
3-12. Contextual Appropriateness (if applicable).
When the prompts include urban/climatic context, do the results align with the specified conditions (e.g., scale, climate adaptability, urban morphology)?
4-1. Terminology Clarity.
Are the prompts described clearly, professionally, and unambiguously? Can the reader quickly grasp the design intent after reading?
4-2. Semantic Coverage.
Do the prompts cover the key semantic elements that should appear in the generated image (e.g., structure, material, dynamics)? Are there any missing aspects?
4-3. Prompt–Image Traceability.
Which visual elements in the image can be directly traced back to the prompts? Is the mapping clear and corresponding?
4-4. Structural / Constructive Plausibility.
Are the elevations, connection types, and scale levels in the image aligned with basic architectural logic (even in imaginative or conceptual forms)?
4-5. Legibility of Responsive Mechanism.
Are dynamic, adjustable, or sensory elements in the image identifiable as responsive logics? Or are they merely decorative features?
4-6. Material & Surface Fidelity.
Are the materials, textures, and thickness relationships credible? Do they align with the material language implied in the prompts?
4-7. Compositional Order & Proportion Control.
Are grids, repetitions, rhythms, and window proportions harmonized in terms of overall or partial spatial scale?
4-8. Stylistic Coherence.
Is the overall visual aesthetic coherent (e.g., in terms of color, geometric language, and detail integrity)? Are there stylistic conflicts?
4-9. Visual Rhythmic Quality.
Do repetitions, sequences, folds, or openings create visual rhythms and kinetic attraction? Are these aligned with prompts involving “rhythm”, “sequence”, or “kinetic”?
4-10. Overall Aesthetic Quality.
Overall impression: Does the image demonstrate an integrated and aesthetic design quality?
4-11. Aesthetic Merit & Design Value.
Is the image valuable as a conceptual design proposal? Could it inspire further architectural development?
4-12. Contextual Appropriateness (if applicable).
When the prompts include urban/climatic context, do the results align with the specified conditions (e.g., scale, climate adaptability, urban morphology)?
更多问卷 复制此问卷