You've worked iteratively (formative) on your product. You've applied the technical concepts covered in the class and build a progressively enhanced feature and front-end of your matching application feature. You've done research on what progressive enhancement means and documented your findings. You've also written about your research about JavaScript concept and API's.
A teacher will try out your feature and look at the code. You will show you can create a quality project in which you apply the subject matter of this course and that you understand it. We'll be using your codebase as the main entry for your submission, so please make sure to use code comments as a way to describe what you do and why you do so. Use the wiki to document sources and reflect on your performance.
You hand-in your code on the A1 assignment slot on Brightspace. Your teacher will look at the codebase in your repository and read your research in the wiki. The rubric will be filled in and communicated trough Brightspace. The rubric contains your grade for this assessment.
Make sure your repository stays online after the assessment is finished, we might want to check the code handed in on GitHub after the assessment. We also want to download and archive your project when it鈥檚 done.
| Conditions |
|---|
| Source code is publicly available on GitHub in a repository |
The project is documented in the wiki and has a readme.md |
Cites the sources used; APA style in readme.md |
| 1-2 | 3-4 | 5-6 | 7-8 | 9-10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Application | There is no form of PE or the functionality is not working | Your PE only uses basic DOM manipulation and has no fallback | Your PE uses DOM manipulation and one web API and one data API, the enhancement has a fallback and degrades when features are not available (the PE is 'layered') | You've used multiple (web or third-party) to provide multiple enhancements | You've used complex server / client-side structure to give the user the best possible experience |
| Research | There is no research in the wiki | There is research in the wiki but very limited, not enough to understand your process | There is research about PE, you've documented your process and ideas and you've researched several API's. You've written about how you implemented client-side code and the fallbacks of the PE. | The research is in-depth, you've technically described how your wrote you code and did research on browser support | The wiki reads like a book. All topics covered in class are toroughly researched and you've technically but clearly documented your progressive enhancement and code. |
| Quality | There is no front-end, no HTML, CSS or client-side JavaScript | Your HTML is not semantic, CSS is limited and client-side JavaScript gives errors | Your HTML is semantic and appropriate elements have been chosen. Your CSS is using some sort of structure. Your JavaScript is structured, well-writen and consistent. | Your HTML, CSS and JavaScript are solid. You've taken special care to also focus on interaction and accessiblity. | HTML, CSS and JavaScript are exemplary. The codebase is on 'production' level and other developers would love to build on your work. |
Note:
You'll need a > 5.5 for each row to pass: you can't compensate between rows.
Each of this rubric鈥檚 rows is cumulative: for example, to get a 5-6 on concept, you also need to have a 1-2 and 3-4.
- We don鈥檛 like plagiarism and report it to our assessment committee (examencommissie in Dutch).For more on plagiarism read our statement of academic integrity.
- Grades will be published and communicated trough MS Teams and Brightspace. We also publish grade lists on Brightspace based on student numbers.