MODULAR PROGRAMME

ASSESSED COURSEWORK SPECIFICATION

(Form subject to GOFL/GOAD approval)

Module Details

Academic Year
2006/7

Module Code
UFIEKG-20-2

Run
1

Module Title
Data, Schemas and Applications

Module Leader
Chris Wallace

Module Tutors
Chris Wallace ,Mark Butler

Assignment Element Number
CW1

Element Description
Group work on a structured task

Weighting: (% of the Module's assessment)
25%

Total Assignment time
12 hours

Dates

Date issued to Students
To be supplied

Date to be returned to Students
5th January 2007

Submission Place
THE POST BOXES IN N BLOCK FOYERS
Boxes are open a week before submission date

Submission Date
30th November 2006

Submission Time
2.00 pm

Deliverables

Report and a working application
 
 
 
 

Module Leader Signature

 
 

 


 

UFIEKG-20-3 - Data, Schemas and Applications

Coursework 1

This is a group assignment. Due date 30th November 2006

 

The aim of this coursework is to investigate existing web application architectures and then develop a simple web-based application to store, view and search photographs taken by more than one photographer.

 

This coursework will be the basis of problem-centred learning during the first semester.

Part 1 30%

A review of the functions and assumed data structures which underlie a web site with a similar purpose.  For this part you will work on Flickr..

 

The review of the site should cover:

 

The assumed data structure – documented using the QSEE case tool or other agreed package.

 

A review of the technology used in the application, using Cal Henderson's talk and other material, explaining briefly the key technologies used.

 

A brief critique of the usability of the user interface.

Deliverable

A  report of not more that 1000 words with diagrams.

 

Marking Criteria

0-40 for a submission which does not show a genuine attempt to understand the structure of  the application, has not attempted to use the tools provided and shows a lack of application to the task.

 

40-50 for evidence that the student has attempted to understand the application and document that understanding using the QSEE tool, but the model is ill-structured, lacking in detail and obviously incorrect.

 

50-60 for a good attempt to use the QSEE tool to document their understanding, model is appropriate and has some detail, but is narrow in scope and contains some errors in notation (1-many relationships the wrong way round, poor understanding of foreign key generation ..)

 

60-70 for an attempt which is thorough, detailed and uses the notations well, but which may have some errors of fact or notation and may have omitted some areas of the application.

 

70 + for an attempt which is thorough, detailed with supporting annotations, with excellent coverage of the application, and which demonstrates an understanding of the limitations of the notation and of the evidence available from the user viewpoint.

Part 2  70%

A three-tier application with the minimal functionality to create members, add photographs and to view and search the photographs, to be developed by a team of no more than three students.

Deliverables

1. A working prototype using MySQL and files for the persistence layer, PHP for the server-side scripting in the application layer and XHTML and JavaScript for the presentation layer. There should be NO access control on any functions. (30%)

 

2. System documentation to explain the design and implementation of your application.  This documentation is expected to contain:

 

The URL of the application

 

A fully documented data model of the data structures.

 

Discussion of at least 3 key design decisions you had to make.

 

Listings of all code created

(40%)

 

A document, signed by all members of a team, describing which components of the system were developed by which student.   In the event that this document reveals an imbalance of activity between the group members, the mark for each student may be adjusted up or down from the group mark for this section.

 

Marking Criteria

 

0 - 40 (fail) for an attempt which does not work, is documented only by listings of dubious provenance and which fails to show any learning in the technologies required.   Teamwork is evidently absent.

 

40-50  for an attempt which has a few basic functions but is poorly documented and where one member of the team has done all the work.  Parts of the application may not work, but this can be seen to be because of a simple problem and there is good work despite the failure to work as a whole.

 

50-60 for a basically functioning system produced by a team working together, with some documentation

 

60-70 for a system with most functions working, a basic interface and good documentation

 

70+ for a fully functioning system, well-documented with descriptions of the design choices made in the implementation and design as well as implementation documentation.

 

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can we select our own team?

A: I will guide the allocation of members to teams for this coursework to get a balance of experience across each group.

 

Q: Can we use a code generator, such as Dreamweaver 8?

A: I would expect this assignment to be done using the basic tools provided with hand-coding.  The purpose of the assignment is to give you confidence in these basic, widely available and free tools even if in practice you will be using some kind of code-generator.  Leave Dreamweaver 8 to your own web work.

 

Q: Can I use Flash for the interface.

A:  You will get plenty of time to use Flash on Multimedia Authoring.  In the future you will learn a number of different languages – the more languages you get to see and try, the easier it will be to learn a new one.

 

 

Resources

         Flickr - http://www.flickr.com/

         Flickr: a Case study by talk by Flickr architect  Cal Henderson, http://www.iamcal.com/ at Web design World San Francisco Feb 2006. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2308715675825246477&q=ajax+applications

         QSEE http://www.qsee-technologies.com/