COS 333 Project: Final Submission Information

Fri May 8 12:57:39 EDT 2015

May 12 (Dean's Date): Final submission

Your final submission must include

• most important: access to a working version of your system so we can test it.

  If your system involves a special device like a smartphone, you may have to schedule times when TAs and instructor can play with your system. We will try to arrange blocks of times when the TAs will be in the tea room to experiment with your systems.

  BWK: If you have an iPhone app, try TestFlight and send me an invitation. If you have an Android app, maybe include a .apk file or whatever today's equivalent is. I have an iPhone 5C and a Moto-X.

• a web page that would induce others to use your system
• the code you wrote so we can see what you actually did
• an implementation overview with enough detail that it would guide someone taking over your code
• a report on how things worked out and what you learned

Here's what you will have to do:

Submission: Collect everything for submission in one place.

• Make a directory for your submission.

• Copy all the documentation (described below) to this directory.

• Create a sub-directory called src. Copy all source files to src. This includes anything you created, especially source code and similar material. If you have help files, images, data, etc., put that here too (sub-directories are fine). Do not include other files that are created by compilation or downloaded from somewhere else: no object files, executables, class files, emacs backups, IDEs, Git repositories, etc. We don't want to exceed some CS quota.

  If you used a public repository like GitHub, you can definitely include that link; that will help us see where things are.

• Create a gzipped tar file jdoe.tar.gz, where jdoe is the login name of the project manager, and submit it via Dropbox https://dropbox.cs.princeton.edu/COS333_S2015/project. A suitable command sequence is

  	cd submission_directory
  	tar cf ../jdoe.tar .
  	cd ..
  	gzip jdoe.tar
  

  The check script expects that this will be done by jdoe.

Documentation: The documentation must include the following files with EXACTLY these names:

• A standard first page index.html that looks exactly like this one. This page must refer to the other components of the documentation as shown. It must include the "elevator speech" description, a single paragraph that states clearly and succinctly what your system does. And it must tell us how to access a working version of your project so we can experiment. This is very important, so make sure that what you tell us here is right and that your system really is accessible. Feel free to ask us to check ahead of time.

  This page should also link to your project's home page, which presumably includes a product description, screen shots, tutorial sequences, etc. This is the part that explains to potential customers or users what's neat about your project. The content and format are up to you, but try to make it informative and seductive. One possibility might be to organize it around user scenarios like those in your design document.

• A file called internals.pdf (2-3 pages) that describes the internal structure of the software for the developers who will take over after you sell your company, in enough detail that they could continue to evolve your system once you're gone. State clearly the development environment (operating system, languages, compilers, frameworks, etc.) where the system can be built, and the environment where it will run. If you used major components like Rails or Django, these must be noted, along with your best guess about how to get copies. Do not include them! We won't try to recreate your system, but we want to see how it's put together, spelled out carefully enough that we could imagine taking it over if so motivated. Don't get mired in detail, however; 2-3 pages is sufficient.

• A final report report.pdf (6-7 pages double-spaced) that describes how well the project worked out. How did your milestones go? What was your experience with design, interfaces, testing, etc.? What surprises, pleasant or otherwise, did you encounter on the way? What choices did you make that worked out well or badly? What would you like to do if there were more time? How would you do things differently next time? What should next year's class learn from your experience? Imagine that you are writing this document for your (friendly!) boss or professor and want to explain what you learned that could be applied to the next project.

• You can also include links to your demo material, a Powerpoint presentation, etc., if you like. If you did create materials for your presentation, you can certainly include them; it will help us to refresh our memories. (PDF or a web page only.)

Documentation should be written in good English, free of spelling and grammar errors. It should be thorough but not exhaustive; the total submitted documentation should not exceed about 15 printed pages. The report is the most important piece of documentation. I am particularly interested in thoughtful and interesting reports, so don't skimp on this part, though I think an upper limit of 6-7 pages is about right. Reports that speak for the whole group with a single voice seem to work out better than those with one part written by each team member, but it's up to you.

A working system: We will be experimenting with your system starting on Dean's Date, so you must provide access to a running version. If the system is web-based, make sure it's up and running and we have whatever passwords and other controls are necessary to play with the system; that includes administrative rights if part of the functionality involves administration, though we will try to be very careful not to intrude or break things. (We will still worry about external security vulnerabilities like SQL injection, of course.)

If your system is meant to run standalone on Windows or Mac OSX or whatever, you can include a zip file or tarball that contains all the necessary files, along with any project files for the compiler you used. In this case, be sure to include installation instructions.

You should test carefully to ensure that someone not in your group can exercise all aspects of the system, working only from the information in your submission.

It will be a great help if you follow these directions and try to make it easy for us to look at and play with your project. If things go well, we tend to be happy; if things go badly, we get grumpy. Happy graders tend to give better grades.

Grading

• 10% for planning, prototype, alpha, and beta
  • schedules met? evidence of thinking and planning? plausible assessments of time and effort? reasonable division of code and labor? good teamwork and cooperation? adequate functionality along the way?
• 20% demo
  • well organized / rambling, somewhat disorganized / no evidence of organization
  • clear overview and motivation / leaps right in to details / no overview or motivation
  • good examples to illustrate the system / weak or excessively complicated examples / too much mousing around, lost in details
  • apparently works most of the time / occasional glitches / major glitches / clearly broken
  • smooth presentation, evidence of rehearsal / scattered, not sure what comes next / lots of interrupting each other
  • good graphics, easy to read / too much on slides, too small to read, poor colors, wrong screen size / handwritten on blackboard
  • uses allotted time well / runs overtime
  • good answers to questions / weak answers
• 50% functionality
  • effort: clearly the result of sustained hard work / a suitable amount of work / little evidence of effort or care
  • operation: works almost flawlessly / mostly works, occasional glitches / sort of works, awkward / easily broken, can't tell if it works, hangs, crashes
  • user interface: consistent; intuitive, natural and easy to use / occasional pitfalls and unobvious uses / awkward, unintuitive, often confusing to use
  • appearance: polished and professional / mundane and pedestrian / little attention to appearance
  • submission: complete and correct / wrong file names or directories, broken links / major installation or access problems / major missing pieces
• 20% documentation
  • product page: appealing, attractive / straightforward listing of features / sloppy, careless
  • internals: well described / adequately described / badly described
  • report: real insight, thoughtful, informative / straightforward "this is what we did" / repetitive; uncoordinated sections / little evidence of thought or effort
  • writing: very good, clear, interesting, fun to read / acceptable, straightforward / murky, ponderous / excessive grammar errors, spelling mistakes and typos