Hello, if you have any need, please feel free to consult us, this is my wechat: wx91due
|
ITWD7.358 Web Application Programming |
|
|
Weighting: |
50% of final grade |
|
Marks: |
100 |
|
Due Date: |
Weekly up until week 18 |
|
Time: |
January 2th, 2025, 23:55 |
INSTRUCTIONS:
· Students are to attempt all tasks.
· All work submitted must be original and entirely your own work, except where you use ideas, quotations, tables, diagrams, code or any other material from other writers. In such cases you must acknowledge the source using the APA referencing style.
· No part of the work submitted may be used as part of any assessed work for any other academic course.
· Refer to the marking schedule for the mark allocation.
· The completed assessment documentation must be submitted online via Zoodle
· Details on how to submit and publish the website will be discussed during class.
· Assignments must be submitted by 23:55 on the due date.
INTRODUCTION:
The final assessment is your opportunity to design and implement a web application of your own with Python and JavaScript. So long as your final assessment draws upon this course’s lessons, the nature of your website will be up to you, subject to some constraints as indicated below.
1. TASK SCENARIO:
In this course, we’ve discussed how to build simple web pages using HTML and CSS, and how to use Git and GitHub in order to keep track of changes to our code and collaborate with others. We also familiarized ourselves with the Python programming language, started using Django to create web applications, and learned how to use Django models to store information in our web applications. We then introduced JavaScript and learned how to use it to make web pages more interactive and talked about using animation and React to further improve our User Interfaces. We then talked about some best practices in software development and some technologies commonly used to achieve those best practices. In our final topic, we’ve discussed the issues of scaling up and securing our web applications.
Designing and implementing a web application of your own with Python and JavaScript.
2. REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATION:
In this assessment, you are asked to build a web application of your own. The nature of the application is up to you, subject to a few requirements:
· Your web application must be sufficiently distinct from the other assessments in this course, and more complex than those.
o A lab that appears to be a social network is a priori deemed by the staff to be indistinct from the LAB04 (Network), and should not be submitted; it will be rejected.
o A assessment that appears to be an e-commerce site is strongly suspected to be indistinct from the Assessment01 (Commerce), and your README.md file should be very clear as to why it’s not. Failing that, it should not be submitted; it will be rejected.
· Your web application must utilize Django (including at least one model) on the back-end and JavaScript on the front-end.
· Your web application must be mobile-responsive.
The most common cause for failure of the final assessment is not spending enough effort on this next instruction. Read it completely. Your README.md file should be minimally multiple paragraphs in length, and should provide a comprehensive documentation of what you did and, if applicable, why you did it. Ensure you allocate sufficient time and energy to writing a README.md that you are proud of and that documents your assessment thoroughly, and that distinguishes this assessment from others in the course and defends its complexity. Simply saying, effectively, “It’s different from the other assessments and it was complex to build.” is not at all sufficient justification of distinctiveness and complexity. This section alone should consist of several paragraphs, before you even begin to talk about the documentation of your assessment.
· In a README.md in your assessment’s main directory, include a writeup describing your assessment, and specifically your file MUST include all of the following:
o Under its own header within the README called Distinctiveness and Complexity: Why you believe your assessment satisfies the distinctiveness and complexity requirements, mentioned above.
o What’s contained in each file you created.
o How to run your application.
o Any other additional information the staff should know about your assessment.
· If you’ve added any Python packages that need to be installed in order to run your web application, be sure to add them to a requirements.txt file!
· Though there is not a hard requirement here, a README.md in the neighborhood of 500 words is likely a solid target, assuming the other requirements are also satisfied.
Failure to adhere to these requirements WILL result in a failing grade for the assessment, and you will need to wait and resubmit.
Beyond these requirements, the design, look, and feel of the web application are up to you!
3. DELIVERABLES:
The deliverables are comprised of two parts - the documentation and the software as follows:
Documentation.pdf:
· Executive Summary
A concise (approximately 250 words) introduce the background, purpose, and main functions of the assessment.
· Program Framework
Describe the technical framework of the assessment, including the libraries, frameworks, and etc.
· Function Description
Explain each feature in detail, including how users interact with the feature and the logic behind it.
· Code screenshot
Provide a screenshot of the key parts of the code implementation, especially complex logic or innovative solutions.
· Operation effect
Name and version of the theme along with the rationale for the choice. Indicate any changes made to the theme other than the cosmetic changes
Assessment Code.zip:
The submitted assessment code must meet the requirements of the REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATION. And it conforms to the coding writing standards.
Screencast.mp4:
Record a screencast not to exceed 5 minutes in length and screencast recording size less than 200MB (and not uploaded more than one month prior to your submission of this assessment), in which you demonstrate your assessment’s functionality. Be certain that every element of the specification, above, is demonstrated in your video. There’s no need to show your code in this video, just your application in action.
Confirm with the Lecturer before making your choice for the deployment.
MARKING SCHEDULE:
|
Component |
Marks |
|
I. Task Completion (30 points) 25-30 points (Excellent) · Fully meets the task requirements, including building a web application with distinctiveness and complexity, using Django (at least one model) for the back-end, JavaScript for the front-end, and implementing a mobile-responsive design. · All functions operate as expected without significant errors or bugs.
19-24 points (Good) · Basically meets the task requirements. The application has a certain degree of distinctiveness and complexity, but may be slightly lacking in some aspects. · Most functions work properly, with only a few minor issues that do not affect the overall usage.
13-18 points (Average) · Meets the main task requirements, but the distinctiveness and complexity of the application are not prominent enough. · There are some functional problems, such as some interactions not being smooth or the logic of certain functions not being clear, but the main operations can still be basically completed.
7-12 points (Pass) · Basically completes the task, but there are many areas that do not meet the requirements, such as the application being similar to other course assessments or not fully utilizing the specified technologies. · There are many functional problems that affect normal use, but still demonstrate a certain amount of effort and achievement.
0-6 point (Fail) · Fails to complete the task and does not meet the basic requirements, such as not building a web application or not using the specified technologies. · There are serious functional problems and the application is almost unusable. |
30 |
|
II. Documentation Quality (25 points) 21-25 points (Excellent) · The README.md file is detailed and well-structured, contains at least multiple paragraphs, provides in-depth and reasonable explanations of the distinctiveness and complexity of the application, and clearly describes the content of each file, the running method of the application, and other relevant information. · The requirements.txt file is complete and accurate, including all the Python packages required to run the application. · The Documentation.pdf file has complete content, including an accurate executive summary (about 250 words), a detailed program framework, function descriptions, screenshots of key parts of the code, and an operation effect demonstration, and all parts are of high quality. 16-20 points (Good) · The README.md file is relatively detailed and basically covers all necessary information, but the argument for distinctiveness and complexity may not be in-depth enough. · The requirements.txt file is basically correct. · The Documentation.pdf file is comprehensive, with only minor deficiencies in some parts, such as a slightly longer executive summary or not detailed enough function descriptions. 11-15 points (Average) · The README.md file contains the main information, but some content may not be clear or complete, and the explanation of distinctiveness and complexity is relatively simple. · The requirements.txt file may have a few omissions or errors. · The Documentation.pdf file has some obvious problems, such as an unrefined executive summary, an incomplete description of the program framework, or overly brief function descriptions. 6-10 points (Pass) · The README.md file has limited content and fails to fully explain the key information of the application, and the elaboration on distinctiveness and complexity is insufficient. · The requirements.txt file has many problems. · The Documentation.pdf file is of poor quality, with key parts missing or severely insufficient. 0-5 point (Fail) · The README.md file is severely missing or provides almost no useful information. · The requirements.txt file is not provided or is completely incorrect. · The Documentation.pdf file is not provided or the content completely does not meet the requirements. |
25 |
|
III. Demonstration Effect (25 points) 21-25 points (Excellent) · Provides a screencast video no longer than 5 minutes and less than 200MB, clearly demonstrating all the functions of the application, with smooth operation and excellent demonstration effect. · The video comprehensively and in-depth demonstrates the functions of the application, allowing the audience to fully understand the usage and advantages of the application. 16-20 points (Good) · The video basically meets the requirements, and the function demonstration is relatively comprehensive, but may be slightly lacking in the smoothness of operation or the depth of demonstration. · It can clearly demonstrate most of the main functions, but may not fully demonstrate some detailed functions. 11-15 points (Average) · The video shows the main functions, but there are some unclear or omitted function demonstrations. · There may be some small mistakes during the operation, but it does not affect the overall understanding of the application's functions. 6-10 points (Pass) · The video can demonstrate some functions, but the functions are incomplete, and there are many important functions that are not demonstrated or the demonstration fails. · The operation is not smooth enough, and there may be many lags or incorrect operations, affecting the evaluation of the application. 0-5 point (Fail) · No screencast video is provided or the video completely does not meet the requirements and cannot demonstrate the functions of the application. · The video quality is extremely poor and cannot be watched or understood. |
25 |
|
IV. Code Quality (20 points) 27-20 points (Excellent) · The code structure is clear, the logic is rigorous, follows good programming practices, the variable and function names are reasonable, and the code comments are detailed and meaningful. · Fully utilizes the features of Django and JavaScript to achieve efficient and concise code writing and handles complex logic properly. 13-16 points (Good) · The code structure is relatively clear, basically follows programming practices, the variable and function names are relatively reasonable, and there are some code comments. · Well applies the relevant technologies, but there may be some small improvement spaces in code optimization. 9-12 points (Average) · The code structure is basically reasonable, but there are some non-standard areas, such as unclear variable names or few code comments. · Can achieve functions, but the code may have some repetitive or redundant parts, and the logic processing is not concise enough. 5-8 points (Pass) · The code structure is chaotic, with many non-standard areas, random variable names, and severely insufficient code comments. · The function implementation is rather reluctant, the code quality is low, and there may be many potential problems. 0-4 point (Fail) · The code quality is extremely poor, cannot be understood or run, and has serious syntax or logic errors. · Does not write in accordance with the requirements using Django and JavaScript. |
20 |
|
Total Marks |
100 |