While many rubrics have been developed to guide people in evaluating the quality of Open Educational Resources (OER), few studies have empirically investigated how different people apply and perceive such rubrics. This study examines how participants (22 teachers and 22 non-teachers) applied three quality rubrics (comprised of a total of 17 quality indicators) to evaluate 20 OER, and how they perceived the utility of these rubrics. Results showed that both teachers and non-teachers found some indicators more difficult to apply, and displayed different response styles on different indicators. In addition, teachers gave higher overall ratings to OER, but non-teachers' ratings had generally higher agreement values. Regarding rubric perception, both groups perceived these rubrics as useful in helping them find high-quality OER, but differed in their preferences for quality rubrics and indicators.