Category | Assignment | Subject | Computer Science |
---|---|---|---|
University | Arden University | Module Title | COM4014 Introduction to Web Authoring |
Word Count | 3000 Words |
---|
As part of the formal assessment for the program, you are required to submit an Introduction to Web Authoring assignment. Please refer to your Student Handbook for full details of the programme assessment scheme and general information on preparing and submitting assignments.
Scenario:
You are working as a junior developer at Tech Brains Ltd. You are part of a team of junior developers who have recently joined the organisation. Tech Brains provides services to a range of clients in the UK and abroad.
The company has been approached by an organisation that would like to create a website for visitors. This website will focus on travel and tourism to various destinations across the world.
You have been asked to pitch an idea for this site by producing a website
specification for any tourist destination. The destination, content and features of this website are up to you.
The specification should include the following sections:
Create the specification document saved in the following file name/format: [yourstudentnumber]_specification.docx /pdf
e.g. STU96645_specification.docx/pdf
Please Note:
(equivalent to 600 words)
Having proposed an idea for a website, you have been asked to create your proposal.
Requirements
The site should:
Achieve Higher Grades with COM4014 Assignment Solutions
Order Non Plagiarized AssignmentLimitations
Ensure that sources are well referenced using Harvard referencing format and acknowledged. References can be included in the last page of Task 1 or Task 3. Sources of images for your website can be included directly on your website.
You will be assessed on your ability to create pages that effectively use HTML and CSS to present your content and demonstrate your understanding of optimization, usability and basic accessibility requirements.
Create a folder called ‘website’ and save all files for task 2 in this folder.
(equivalent to 1800 words)
Provide evidence that you have evaluated your website in terms of usability and accessibility.
Requirements
[yourstudentnumber]_testing.html/docx/pdf
e.g., STU96645_testing.html or STU96645_testing.docx, or STU96645_testing.pdf
Please Note:
(equivalent to 600 words)
After completing the module, you should be able to:
Criteria |
80% and above |
70-79% |
60-69% |
50-59% |
40-49% |
30-39% |
29% and below |
Website specification pitch
(8 marks) |
Website Objectives/Goals An exceptional articulation of the goals and purpose of the website.
There must be clarity, relevance, specificity, inspiring, concise and demonstrate a clear understanding of the target audience and relevance to the assignment theme
Key Audience An exceptional insight into the key audiences for the website.
With details of target audience's demographics, preferences, behaviors, and needs. E.g age, gender, location, interests etc. |
Website Objectives/Goals An excellent articulation of the goals and purpose of the website.
There must be clarity, relevance, specificity, inspiring, concise and demonstrate a clear understanding of the target audience and relevance to the assignment theme
Key Audience A sophisticated insight into the key audiences for the website.
Detailed understanding of the target audience's demographics, preferences, behaviors, and needs. E.g age, gender, location, interests etc. |
Website Objectives/Goals A very good articulation of the goals and purpose of the website, with some scope for further development.
There must be clarity, relevance, specificity, concise and demonstrate a clear understanding of the target audience and relevance to the assignment theme
Key Audience A very good articulation into the key audiences for the website, with minor deficiencies in terms of content and clarity.
Shows a very good understanding of the target audience's with some demographic info, such as age, gender, location, interests etc. |
Website Objectives/Goals A good articulation of the goals and purpose of the website, though there may be scope for more depth of development and some aspects lack clarity.
There must be clarity, and relevance to the assignment theme.
Key Audience A mostly coherent articulation into the key audiences for the website, but there is scope for more depth of understanding.
Shows a good understanding of the target audience's with little demographic info, such as age, gender, location, interests etc. |
Website Objectives/Goals A fair or basic articulation of the goals and purpose of the website but lacking in depth.
Shows basic understanding of the target audience with relevance to assignment theme.
Key Audience A basic articulation of the key audiences for the website. Information is mostly generic with no clear articulation
Understanding of the target audience. Demographics missing. |
Website Objectives/Goals An incomplete articulation of the goals and purpose of the website with scope for much more development and clarity.
Lacking clarity, relevance, understanding of the target audience.
Key Audience A limited articulation of the key audiences for the website which shows limited depth and understanding. List of users only without any justifications or rational for identification. A sentence or 2 on key audience. Content has very little relevance to context. |
Website Objectives/Goals A largely absent or insufficient articulation of the goals and purpose of the website.
Basic or bullet points of objectives and goals. Or content provided here is not relevant to the provided context. Not in inline with assignment theme.
Key Audience An insufficient identification of key audiences for the website. Completely missing. Key audiences not relevant to context. |
Provisional site structure (showing at least 5 content pages and a form)
(12 Marks) |
Provisional site structure The site structure is exceptionally clear and logical.
Organized in a logical hierarchy, with main categories and subcategories clearly defined. Navigation labels and menu items should be descriptive and concise, accurately reflecting the content of the pages they lead to.
Functional Specification An exceptional articulation of functional requirements. Covers all functionalities and features for at least 80% of the pages. Functional requirements are aligned with the needs of the key audience.
Website Comparison An exceptional and insightful analysis of similar websites. The analysis includes a comprehensive review of 3 major similar websites.
Discuss in great detail similar websites in terms |
Provisional site structure An excellent outline of the site structure which is highly logical.
Organized in a logical hierarchy, with main categories and subcategories clearly defined. Navigation labels and menu items should be descriptive and concise, accurately reflecting the content of the pages they lead to. Functional Specification An excellent articulation of functional requirements. Covers a wide range of functionalities and features for at least 70% of the pages. Functional requirements are aligned with the needs of the key audience.
Website Comparison An excellent analysis of similar websites that demonstrates originality of thought.
The analysis includes a comprehensive review |
Provisional site structure A very good site structure is presented, with some minor issues in terms of clarity and coherence.
Organized in a logical hierarchy, with main categories and subcategories clearly defined. Navigation labels and menu items accurately captioned.
Functional Specification A very good articulation of functional requirements though there may be minor omissions or errors in understanding. Covers a very good range of functionalities and features for at least 60% of the pages.
Website Comparison A very good analysis of similar websites that contains a number of high relevant observations though there is scope for some further development. |
Provisional site structure A good articulation of site structure but there is scope for further development in terms of coherence and clarity
Organized in a logical hierarchy, with main categories and subcategories clearly defined. Navigation labels and menu items accurately captioned
Functional Specification A good articulation of functional requirements though there may be scope for further development. Covers a range of functionalities and features that the website must have to fulfill its purpose effectively for at least 50% of the pages.
Website Comparison A good analysis of similar websites though there is scope for more development as aspects lack depth or detail. The analysis includes a decent review of 3 major similar websites. |
Provisional site structure A basic presentation of site structure with scope for much more development in terms of clarity and coherence.
Functional Specification |
Provisional site structure An incomplete or underdeveloped site structure with omissions or errors.
Functional Specification |
Provisional site structure A largely absent site structure or there are significant issues in demonstrating understanding of required aspects.
Functional Specification |
A basic articulation of functional requirements, with aspects that are either incomplete or missing or there is a lack of understanding in key aspects. Alignment with the needs of the key audience.
Website Comparison A basic similar analysis which has scope for much more work in terms of depth of development.
Basic analysis of 3 similar websites. Missing |
An incomplete presentation of functional requirement that contains many omissions of relevant content or demonstrates limited understanding of key concepts.
Website Comparison An incomplete analysis which is limited in extent and depth. Little or missing aspects in the analysis such as design, accessibility, usability, and features. Some website links not |
A largely incomplete set of requirements or very limited understanding of required aspects.
Website Comparison An absent or insufficient analysis of similar sites.
No similar analysis attracts zero marks.
Bullet point sentences with no comparative |
|
of their design, accessibility, usability and Website links included |
of at least 3 major similar websites.
Discuss in detail similar websites in terms of their design, accessibility, usability. Website links included |
The analysis includes a very good review of 3 major similar websites.
Discuss in detail similar websites in terms of their design, accessibility, usability, and features. Website links included |
Discuss in detail similar websites in terms of their design, accessibility, usability, and features. Website links included |
some aspects such as design, accessibility, usability, and features. Some website links included. |
included. Content not relevant. Ambiguous content not specific to areas of analysis. |
analysis for design, accessibility, usability, and features. Website links not included. |
Criteria |
80% and above |
70-79% |
60-69% |
50-59% |
40-49% |
0-39% |
29% and below |
Content (20 marks) |
Exceptional content in terms of text and images which is polished, creative and highly engaging throughout the entire site. |
An excellent level of content encompassing text and images across the site pages which demonstrate a high level of understanding of consistency, theme and purpose. |
A very good level of content in terms of text and images which demonstrates purpose, theme and consistency throughout the site though there are some minor issues. |
A good level of content in terms of text and images which attempts to address issues of theme, consistency and purpose though there are issues with implementation and depth across website pages. |
An adequate level of content but there is scope for further levels of originality of thought in relation to the task and opportunities to further develop the content in terms of purpose, theme and consistency. |
An insufficient level of content which demonstrates little understanding of the audience or their needs. |
Largely incomplete content that demonstrates little understanding of purpose, theme or consistency. |
Technical |
A professional level of |
An excellent level of |
A very good use of |
A competent use of |
An adequate use of HTML and CSS with some evidence of understanding but there are a number of significant errors in implementation of images, forms, tables, lists and headers and optimisation of site elements. |
Insufficient use of |
A largely incomplete |
Implementation |
production and |
production |
HTML and CSS code |
HTML and CSS which |
appropriate HTML and |
implementation of HTML and |
|
(20 marks) |
technical proficiency |
demonstrating a very |
which shows that the |
shows control of the |
CSS to construct |
CSS with little evidence of |
|
|
that results in an |
high level of proficiency |
author has a good level |
code but there are |
optimised site pages, |
understanding of appropriate |
|
|
outstanding use of |
in the use of HJTML and |
of control of these |
errors in terms of use of |
with many |
use of tags and styles to create |
|
|
HTML and CSS to |
CSS, including a high |
elements and how they |
HTML markup and CSS |
inconsistencies. |
optimised site pages. |
|
|
present site pages that |
level of mastery of |
can be used to construct |
across elements such as |
|
|
|
|
are highly consistent in |
elements such as |
optimised site pages. |
images, forms, headers, |
|
|
|
|
terms of |
images, headers, lists, |
Markup is meaningful, |
tables and lists and |
|
|
|
|
implementation of |
tables and forms as well |
headers are used in |
optimisation of site |
|
|
|
|
elements such as |
as optimisation of site |
order and elements such |
elements. |
|
|
|
|
images, forms, tables, |
elements. |
as images, forms, lists |
|
|
|
|
|
headers and lists as well |
|
and tables are marked |
|
|
|
|
|
as optimisation of site |
|
up according to purpose |
|
|
|
|
|
elements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organisation |
A professional use of |
An excellent use of |
A very good use of |
A competent use of |
Evidence of |
Significant errors in |
An absence of usable |
(information |
navigation and links in |
navigation and links in |
navigation and links in |
navigation and links in |
understanding of |
terms of use of |
navigation elements rendering |
architecture, navigation, |
the context of |
the context of |
the context of |
the context of |
navigation, links and |
navigation, links which |
the site unusable from an |
links) (10 marks) |
information architecture |
information architecture |
information architecture |
information architecture but there are issues in |
information architecture |
render much of the site |
information |
|
ensuring that there are no |
resulting in a highly intuitive site |
that serve the site well and provide consistency |
|
but there are issues in terms of |
unusable and unintuitive in terms of |
|
|
issues in terms of accessibility and usability when accessing site content. |
where all the content is clearly accessible |
and usability though there are some minor errors in implementation. |
implementation and scope for further development in terms of consistency and function. |
consistency and/or broken links. |
information architecture |
architecture perspective. |
Design |
A professional level of |
An excellent level of |
A very good level of |
A good level of design in |
A basic understanding of |
An insufficient design |
An unusable design |
(10 marks) |
design which |
design which |
design which |
terms of layout, colour |
design in terms of |
which impacts |
which renders the site |
|
demonstrates use of |
demonstrates a high |
demonstrates |
and typography which is |
structure, typography |
significantly on function |
inaccessible or the |
|
layout, colour and typography which come together to an extremely high level. |
level of understanding of layout, colour and typography. |
understanding of colour, typography and layout in most cases through there are some minor issues with implementation. |
usable and accessible thought there are errors or issues in terms of implementation. |
and use of colour |
and usability in terms of text, images, colour and layout and there are major issues with originality. |
design shows a very high lack of originality due to using template elements. |
Criteria |
80% and above |
70-79% |
60-69% |
50-59% |
40-49% |
30-39% |
29% and below |
Evaluation (20 marks) |
An exemplary level of evidence of testing and evaluation that full encompasses the range of tests available and is conducted to a professional level. Evidence that all pages were tested with before and after screenshots of the pages (if test showed need for improvement).
Tests and validation includes: 1. HTML Validator (The W3C Markup Validation Service), 2. CSS validator (The W3C CSS Validation Service) 3. Wave Tool (WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (webaim.org))
Website was tested on different web browsers and devices across several screen sizes. |
An excellent level of evidence of testing and evaluation that encompasses a comprehensive range of tests. Evidence that 80% of the pages were tested with before and after screenshots of the pages (if test showed need for improvement).
Tests and validation includes: 1. HTML Validator (The W3C Markup Validation Service), 2. CSS validator (The W3C CSS Validation Service) 3. Wave Tool (WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (webaim.org))
Website was tested on different web browsers and devices across several screen sizes. Missing one test. |
A very good level of evidence of testing and evaluation that encompasses a wide range of tests though there is scope for some minor improvements. Evidence that 60% of the pages were tested. Evidence of any improvement made. Tests and validation includes: 1. HTML Validator (The W3C Markup Validation Service), 2. CSS validator (The W3C CSS Validation Service) 3. Wave Tool (WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (webaim.org))
Website was tested on different web browsers and devices across several screen sizes. Missing two tests. |
A good level of evidence of testing and evaluation that encompasses a range of tests though there is scope for further testing and documentation. Evidence that 50% of the pages were tested. At least one evidence of any improvement made.
Tests and validation includes at least 3 of any of the following: 1. HTML Validator (The W3C Markup Validation Service), 2. CSS validator (The W3C CSS Validation Service) 3. Wave Tool (WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (webaim.org))
Website was tested on 2 web browsers. Missing device testing |
A basic level of evidence of testing and evaluation that encompasses some of the available tests but there is scope for much further testing and documentation. Evidence that some of the pages were tested. Improvement are limited or missing.
Tests and validation are limited.
Website was tested on 1 web browser with limited or no device testing |
Limited evidence of testing and evaluation that is largely incomplete or there are major issues with relevance and application of available testing methods. Information provided is not relevant.
Missing many tests across browsers and devices. |
An absence of evidence that relevant testing methods have been employed.
Zero marks for missing tests. |
Hire Experts to solve this assignment Before your Deadline
Buy Today Contact UsStuck on your COM4014 Introduction to Web Authoring? Don't worry! Our Computer Science Assignment Help service is the best for you. If you need help with assignments, our expert PhD writers will provide you with original content. And yes, you will also get free assignment samples, which will give you a perfect idea of how to write a top-quality assignment. Don't worry about the deadline, as we guarantee on-time delivery. Contact us now for high-quality and plagiarism-free work and boost your grades!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content