TEESSIDE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF COMPUTING
|
ICA SPECIFICATION |
|
Module Title: Advanced Server-side Technologies |
Module Leader: Andrew Bingham |
|
Module Code: MUL3055-N |
|
|
Assignment Title: OLV Website and Documentation |
Deadline Date: 31st December 2016 |
|
Deadline Time: 3.00 PM |
|
|
Submission Method: Should be Handed over to Londontec 1 Hard Copy 2 Soft Copies |
|
Central Assignments Office (Middlesbrough Tower M2.08) Notes: All work (including CDs etc) needs to be secured in a plastic envelope or a directory and clearly marked with the student name, number and module title. An Assignment Front Sheet should be fully completed before the work is submitted. When an extension has been granted, a fully completed and signed Extension form must be submitted to the SCM Reception. |
|
FULL DETAILS OF THE ASSIGNMENT ARE ATTACHED INCLUDING MARKING & GRADING CRITERIA |
ICA – Individual Project
The Individual Project will form 100% of the overall module mark. You are required to work on the project detailed below. Formative Feedback will be provided throughout during scheduled practical lab sessions.
Mentioning the Web URL is Compulsory
Scenario Brief – Online Learning Video Repository
You are required to build a prototype Web Application called: Online Learning Video Repository (OLV) a crowd based application that allows the curation of online learning videos aimed at students at Teesside University. The idea is that students are increasingly using online videos to learn, but often keep these to themselves and/or store the URL’s in YouTube etc… It is expected that the OLV will be used as a standalone web application, and students would need to register. Students would be able to view, search, leave comments and rate learning videos. The latter is important to ensure students know that what they are viewing has endorsement and therefore recognition as a useful learning resource.
It is expected that there will be a basic system of being able to add a video, such as the YouTube ‘shortened URL’ or full URL to other resources (there is no need to upload the actual video file). There would also be an existing list of modules that students could attach the video too. We are looking for ideas in terms of enhanced features, so if you have your own ideas – we would want to hear about them and explore them in the prototype.
Web Application Prototype (60% of marks):
The proof on concept prototype will be a limited working version:
Build application entirely within Yii1 or Yii2, using the built in views – but change the standard template as appropriate.
This is a brand new Web Application and as such there is no existing web presence or company logo/branding. We require an appropriate visual design, colour scheme, layout and navigation that is appropriate for the context in which the Web Application will be used.
Please use no more than seven database tables in your data model. This ensures you focus on the core aspects of the web application.
Required Functional and non-functional requirements:
– Must allow a student user to register using their email address. The User Password must be encrypted using an appropriate built in Yii crypt() method.
– admin users can be hard coded into the DB, and can have a separate login area.
– Must include students first and last name and student id
– Must allow user to login with their email address
– Must allow the user to create a new video reference, with appropriate data such as title, URL, metadata etc..
– Must allow the users to view details about the video.
– Must allow an admin user to edit the data for a video entry.
– Must allow an admin user to delete a video.
– User dashboard should include functionality associated with the functions.
For further marks, the application could have the following additional functionality:
– Should include search facility based on the meta data and return results to an appropriate screen, where the user can then select and view the video.
– Should include a ‘My Saved Videos option’, that would include a button to save and a screen showing previously saved videos.
Note: this list is not exhaustive – please use eWURF (www.wurf.co.uk) to determine additional requirements as you see fit.
Required Content Areas for the Prototype Web Application: Home Screen (not logged in), Dashboard Screen (logged in user) showing user details.
Deliver a working prototype to the Londontec Web Server in a directory named AST_16.
Deployment Documentation (20%):
You should detail how the application will be deployed and describe the approach taken in its development. Functional and Non-functional requirements should be included here (use eWURF).It will also outline key framework technologies, server environment, server requirements, how you might deploy to other server environments, load balancing, ways of enhancing performance further and SEO. Marks will be awarded for way the document communicates these aspects. Maximum 1000 words.
Upload the documents to the AST_16 directory.
3. Reflective Essay (20%):
Please outline the approach taken in terms of development methodology, defence of the MVC framework, problems encountered and modifications taken. Please evaluate against the functional and non-functional user requirements. Marks will be awarded for the quality of the reflection and systematic use of criteria for the evaluation. Maximum 1000 words.
Deliverables Summary
Web Application Prototype (worth 60% of marks)
Deployment Documentation (worth 20% of marks)
Reflective Essay (worth 20% of marks)
Deliverables Details
Prototype Web Application uploaded to a directory on the Londontec Web Server named: AST_16
Deployment Documentation submitted to Londontec
– Submit to Londontec by deadline
Reflective Essay submitted to Londontec
– Submit to Londontec by deadline date.
Important: failure to upload to the AST_16 directory above will count as a non-submission. You need to put your website in a directory named: Web Application (otherwise I can’t view your AST_16 root directory!)
You also need to upload Web Application to Londontec Web Server
Marking Criteria:
|
Assignment Element |
Marks allocated for |
% of Total |
|
Prototype Web Application |
Clientside Development
|
A: The visual design is highly professional and responsive across multiple viewports. A responsive navigation is incorporated and thought has been put into how the user interacts with application to provide an excellent experience. HTML and CSS are well written. |
/20 |
|
B: The visual design is of a good standard and responsive across multiple viewports, with some minor issues. The navigation system is appropriate and interactions provide a good experience overall. HTML and CSS mostly well written. |
|||
|
C: The visual design is of a satisfactory standard and responsive across two viewports, with some issues present. The navigation system is appropriate and interactions provide a satisfactory experience overall. HTML and CSS sometimes causes issues when rendering in the browser. |
|||
|
D: The visual design is of a poor standard and can only be viewed in one viewport, with many issues present. The navigation system is poor and interactions provide a poor experience overall. HTML and CSS renders inappropriately in the browser. |
|||
|
E: Some attempt made, but fall short of a pass without some additional work. |
|||
|
F: Deficient in all aspects. |
|||
|
Serverside Development PHP/MySQL |
A: The Web Application works without any major errors, and demonstrates multiple client server interactions appropriate to the scenario. Yii or alternative framework is used correctly. PHP is written and organised professionally and is fully commented. The data model includes more than four tables, but no more than eight. |
/40 |
|
|
B: The Web Application works with only minor errors, and demonstrates multiple client server interactions. Yii or alternative framework is mainly used correctly. PHP is written and organised appropriately and is mostly commented. The data model includes more than three tables, but no more than eight. |
|||
|
C: The Web Application works with a few errors, and demonstrates at least one client server interaction. Yii or alternative framework or alternative framework is used, but some issues apparent .PHP is mostly written correctly, but a few minor issues are visible when it runs. The data model includes at least two tables, but no more than eight. |
|||
|
D: The Web Application works with a number of errors. An attempt made at one client server interaction, which will partially work. Yii or alternative framework is not used correctly. PHP could be better written. The data model includes at least one table. |
|||
|
E: Some attempt made, but fall short of a pass without some additional work. |
|||
|
F: Deficient in all aspects. |
|||
|
Sub Total: |
/60 |
||
|
Deployment Documentation |
Development Methods, Server, SEO. |
A: An excellent report, that clearly communicates the methods used in the production of the Web Application, along with how the Web Application would be visible to a search engine. |
10 |
|
B: A good report that communicates the methods used in the production of the Web Application, along with how the Web Application would be visible to a search engine. |
|||
|
C: A satisfactory report that communicates the methods used in the production of the Web Application, along with how the Web Application would be visible to a search engine. |
|||
|
D: A poor report that communicates the methods used in the production of the Web Application, along with how the Web Application would be visible to a search engine. |
|||
|
E: Some attempt made, but fall short of a pass without some additional work. |
|||
|
F: Deficient in all aspects. |
|||
|
Requirements Documentation
|
A: eWURF fully utilised to explore actors, tasks, objectives and functional/non-functional requirements. A full and complete set of requirements produced at the end. |
10 |
|
|
B: eWURF utilised to explore actors, tasks, objectives and functional/non-functional requirements. A mainly complete set of requirements produced at the end. |
|||
|
C: eWURF partially utilised to explore actors, tasks, objectives and functional/non-functional requirements. A mainly complete set of requirements produced at the end, but some issues may be apparent. |
|||
|
D: eWURF partially utilised to explore actors, tasks, objectives and functional/non-functional requirements. A mainly complete set of requirements produced at the end, but some significant issues may be apparent. |
|||
|
E: Some attempt made, but fall short of a pass without some additional work. |
|||
|
F: Deficient in all aspects. |
|||
|
|
Sub Total: |
/20 |
|
|
Reflective Essay |
Reflection on process.
|
A: An excellent reflective essay, providing the reader with insight into the main problems encountered and how these were resolved. Systematic evaluation against the functional and non-functional requirements. |
20 |
|
B: A good reflective essay, providing the reader with insight into the some of the main problems encountered and how these were resolved. Systematic evaluation against the functional and non-functional requirements. |
|||
|
C: A satisfactory reflective essay, providing the reader with insight into the some of the main problems encountered and how these were resolved. Evaluation against the functional and non-functional requirements, but some may be missing. |
|||
|
D: A poor reflective essay. Does not provide the reader with insight into the problems encountered and how these were resolved. A poor evaluation against the functional and non-functional requirements. |
|||
|
E: Some attempt made, but fall short of a pass without some additional work. |
|||
|
F: Deficient in all aspects. |
|||
|
Sub Total: |
/20 |
||
|
Total Mark: |
/100 |
||
The usual penalties for late sub-mission and plagiarism will apply. If you re-use code from other websites, please reference these in the source code by making use of comments.
Tags: alwaysopen, assignmenthelpaustralia, assignmenthelpmelbourne, assignmenthelpsydney, assignmenthelpwebsites, london, londonstudent, melbourne, myassignmenthelp, plagiarismfreework, studentassignmenthelp