CS 280 in Winter 2026

Weekly Schedule (Tentative)

Week of	Meetings		Topics	Items of Note
	Tue	Thu
Jan 5, 2026	01	02	New Course Orientation
Jan 12, 2026	03	04
Jan 19, 2026	05	06
Jan 26, 2026	07	08
Feb 2, 2026	09	10
Feb 9, 2026	11	12
Feb 16, 2026				Family Day / Reading Week; Reading Week
Feb 23, 2026	13	14
Mar 2, 2026	15	16
Mar 9, 2026	17	18
Mar 16, 2026	19	20
Mar 23, 2026	21	22	CIPS Presentation
Mar 30, 2026	23	24		Good Friday
Apr 6, 2026	25	26
Apr 13, 2026

Office Hours and Semester Schedule

--- layout: default --- # SCHEDULE STUB

Links

• Syllabus (pdf)
• Course calendar (.ics)
• UR Courses

Assignments

Project Proposal ()

• Marks: 5
• Due Date: 18-Feb-2022 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Description

The project can be done individually or in a small group (of up to 4). If you choose to work in a group, list all the group members on the proposal near the top (so that you can be put into a project group together) – only 1 copy of the proposal needs to be submitted. If your project changes after the proposal is submitted, please keep me informed (the goal of the proposal is for you to plan so that changes won’t be necessary).

You may choose what you will do for the project and that will depend on whether you are working individually or in a group. It must deal with class themes in some way, and I am open to your ideas about how you will do it. Some possibilities include:

• Research Paper
• Book Review

Start with a careful and critical reading of your chosen book. Describe, analyze, and evaluate your book as well as provide evidence to support your conclusions. Identify the key arguments of the book and how well the author supports them. Some questions to consider:

• How and what does this work help us to understand about an issue?
• What types of evidence does the author draw on to support their argument?
• Does the book do what the author claims that it will do?
• Are there other types of evidence that the author fails to acknowledge or ignores?
• Is there a theoretical perspective from which the author writes?
• How is this book similar to or different from other books on the topic? Why are they similar or different?
• Are you convinced by the book? Why or why not?

An appropriate structure will include an introduction that provides: identification of the book, author, and any essential historical background needed for context; and a clear and concise evaluation of the book that includes its main argument and its strengths and weaknesses. After the introduction, provide a brief summary or overview of the book. Identify the essential arguments of the book and briefly summarize them. Next will come the evaluation and analysis that contains the bulk of your review where you explain and develop the evaluation made in the introduction. Provide evidence. Finally, conclude with a concise summation of your review.

• Wikipedia article (create new or add to existing)
• Create and promote some online content (video [which could be a recording of a presentation with narration], podcast, blog)
• Picture Yourself as a Computing Professional

Identify and discuss role models for your life as a computing professional. Choose 3 computing professional role models (from the present or past) and write about each one. Include a picture of each, if possible. Reflect on how they inspire you with respect to the Codes of Ethics (including https://ethics.acm.org/) that we are examining in class.

• Discuss your contributions to an open source project (on github, for example)
• Write some code to test an idea

Contents and Format of the Proposal

To match the rubric below, use the following headings.

Topic

Describe your topic and how it relates to class. The list of topics and learning outcomes for this semester may be of help. Choose a topic that is new to you (that you haven’t done in your blog entry). If the general topic is similar, please indicate how you will treat it differently, such as from a different perspective.

Deliverable and Rationale

Choose the form in which you will deliver your project. Explain why you are choosing that particular deliverable and explain why it is appropriate for a group or an individual to realize it.

Tentative Plan

Provide a plan, with some milestones, for realizing your chosen deliverable. This plan may look like an outline of what you expect to include. If you are doing this with a group, make clear how each group member will participate in the final deliverable.

Submission

• submit a well-formatted pdf document on UR Courses
• target length: 1-2 pages

Grading

This assignment is worth 5 marks, according to the following rubric:

Rubric

DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Topic (1) criteria_P_PROP Choose... Exemplary (+): Topic actively engages an important issue related to class Exemplary: Topic actively engages an important issue related to class Exemplary (-): Topic actively engages an important issue related to class Sufficient (+): Topic engages an important issue related to class Sufficient: Topic engages an important issue related to class Sufficient (-): Topic engages an important issue related to class Developing (+): Topic somewhat engages an important issue related to class Developing: Topic somewhat engages an important issue related to class Developing (-): Topic somewhat engages an important issue related to class Needs Improvement: Topic does not engage an important issue related to class

Deliverable and Rationale (2) criteria_P_PROP Choose... Exemplary (+): Intended deliverable is appropriate and imaginative. Rationale for approach is clear and well-formed Exemplary: Intended deliverable is appropriate and imaginative. Rationale for approach is clear and well-formed Exemplary (-): Intended deliverable is appropriate and imaginative. Rationale for approach is clear and well-formed Sufficient (+): Intended deliverable is appropriate. Rationale for approach is reasonable Sufficient: Intended deliverable is appropriate. Rationale for approach is reasonable Sufficient (-): Intended deliverable is appropriate. Rationale for approach is reasonable Developing (+): Intended deliverable is somewhat appropriate. Rationale for approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed Developing: Intended deliverable is somewhat appropriate. Rationale for approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed Developing (-): Intended deliverable is somewhat appropriate. Rationale for approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed Needs Improvement: Intended deliverable is not appropriate. Rationale for approach is not clear

Tentative Plan (2) criteria_P_PROP Choose... Exemplary (+): Ambitious and thorough Exemplary: Ambitious and thorough Exemplary (-): Ambitious and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat thorough Developing: Somewhat thorough Developing (-): Somewhat thorough Needs Improvement: Not thorough

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, within 24 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 48 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 72 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 96 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 108 hours

Assignment NOT submitted within 108 hours

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Blog Entry ()

• Marks: 16
• Due Date: 11-Mar-2022 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Description

Blogs (short for weblogs) have become an important means of expression in the information society. Personal blog posts are discrete, often informal, diary-style commentaries written by an individual.

Prepare and submit a blog post that deals with a course-related topic that is currently, or was recently, in the news.

The list of knowledge units also includes learning outcomes associated with the topics. If it is helpful, you may consider those learning outcomes as suggestions about how to approach your topic.

Find a personal connection to the topic. You may, for example, evaluate the (consideration of) ethical and social tradeoffs in a technical decision or analyse the role of computer professionals in a global computing issue.

Identify multiple (4-8) reputable online sources to reference in support of your topic. References are to be included as hyperlinks within the post, close to the text that makes the reference. They should also be clearly included in plain text at the end of your work. Also at the end of your work, answer the following questions about each source:

1. Who is the author?
2. Who is the publisher?
3. What is the purpose or prespective of the content?
4. Is the information provided by the source timely and relevant?
5. How does this source compare to others?

From Nielsen and Morkes, here are some ways to write for the web:

Conventional Guidelines for Good Writing are Good

Conventional guidelines include carefully organizing the information, using words and categories that make sense to the audience, using topic sentences, limiting each paragraph to one main idea, and providing the right amount of information.

Text Should be Scannable

Scanning can save users time. Most people are likely to approach unfamiliar Web text by trying to scan it before reading it. Elements that enhance scanning include headings, large type, bold text, highlighted text, bulleted lists, graphics, captions, and topic sentences.

Text Should be Concise

Consistent with users’ desire to get information quickly is their preference for short text.

Users Like Summaries and the Inverted Pyramid Style

Web writing that presents news, summaries, and conclusions up front is useful and saves time. A news story written in the inverted pyramid style (in which news and conclusions are presented first, followed by details and background information), are well-received.

Hypertext is Well-Liked

“The incredible thing that’s available on the Web is the ability to go deeper for more information.” However, hypertext may be distracting if a site contains “too many” links.

Nielsen also provides a list of mistakes to avoid, which include the following 3 that are most relevant to us:

• Nondescript Posting Titles: Users must be able to grasp the gist of an article by reading its headline. Avoid cute or humorous headlines that make no sense out of context.
• Links Don’t Say Where They Go: Many weblog authors seem to think it’s cool to write link anchors like: “ some people think” or “there’s more here and here .” Remember one of the basics of the Web: Life is too short to click on an unknown. Tell people where they’re going and what they’ll find at the other end of the link. Generally, you should provide predictive information in either the anchor text itself or the immediately surrounding words.
• Forgetting That You Write for Your Future Boss: Whenever you post anything to the Internet — whether on a weblog, in a discussion group, or even in an email — think about how it will look to a hiring manager in ten years. Once stuff’s out, it’s archived, cached, and indexed in many services that you might never be aware of.

Sample

A sample blog entry, that I wrote a few years ago, can be found at: https://www.itworldcanada.com/blog/wanted-defenders-of-the-public-interest/86095

Submission

Submit your blog entry as HTML, either uploaded as a file or pasted as online text. You may edit your blog entry in your “Individual Student Blog” and copy the HTML from there.

You may optionally choose to post your entry to the “Class Blog”, as evidence of participation.

The target length is 900-1000 words.

Grading

This assignment is worth 16 marks, according to the following rubric:

Rubric

DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Intellectual Engagement with Key Theme-Related Concepts (4) criteria_BLOG Choose... Exemplary (+): Demonstrates engagement with the important issues raised through readings and/or class activities Exemplary: Demonstrates engagement with the important issues raised through readings and/or class activities Exemplary (-): Demonstrates engagement with the important issues raised through readings and/or class activities Sufficient (+): Makes some reference to issues raised through readings and/or class activities Sufficient: Makes some reference to issues raised through readings and/or class activities Sufficient (-): Makes some reference to issues raised through readings and/or class activities Developing (+): Makes little reference to issues raised through readings and/or class activities Developing: Makes little reference to issues raised through readings and/or class activities Developing (-): Makes little reference to issues raised through readings and/or class activities Needs Improvement: Makes no reference to issues raised through readings and/or class activities

Personal Response to Key Theme-Related Concepts (4) criteria_BLOG Choose... Exemplary (+): Extensive evidence of a personal response to the issues raised in the readings/activities, and demonstrates your growth Exemplary: Extensive evidence of a personal response to the issues raised in the readings/activities, and demonstrates your growth Exemplary (-): Extensive evidence of a personal response to the issues raised in the readings/activities, and demonstrates your growth Sufficient (+): Some evidence of a personal response to the issues/concepts raised in the readings/activities Sufficient: Some evidence of a personal response to the issues/concepts raised in the readings/activities Sufficient (-): Some evidence of a personal response to the issues/concepts raised in the readings/activities Developing (+): Little evidence of a personal response to the issues/concepts raised in the readings/activities Developing: Little evidence of a personal response to the issues/concepts raised in the readings/activities Developing (-): Little evidence of a personal response to the issues/concepts raised in the readings/activities Needs Improvement: No personal response is made to the issues/concepts raised in the readings/activities

Critical Evaluation of Online Sources (4) criteria_BLOG Choose... Exemplary (+): All questions answered thoroughly Exemplary: All questions answered thoroughly Exemplary (-): All questions answered thoroughly Sufficient (+): All questions answered Sufficient: All questions answered Sufficient (-): All questions answered Developing (+): Questions answered somewhat thoroughly Developing: Questions answered somewhat thoroughly Developing (-): Questions answered somewhat thoroughly Needs Improvement: Few questions answered

Engaged Writing for the Web (4) criteria_BLOG Choose... Exemplary (+): Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience. Blog entry uses recommended style Exemplary: Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience. Blog entry uses recommended style Exemplary (-): Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience. Blog entry uses recommended style Sufficient (+): Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your blog. Recommended style is mostly used Sufficient: Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your blog. Recommended style is mostly used Sufficient (-): Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your blog. Recommended style is mostly used Developing (+): Shows some evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have some trouble reading your blog. Recommended style used occasionally Developing: Shows some evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have some trouble reading your blog. Recommended style used occasionally Developing (-): Shows some evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have some trouble reading your blog. Recommended style used occasionally Needs Improvement: Incorrect grammar and spelling are apparent throughout, making it difficult for others to follow. Recommended style not followed

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, within 24 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 48 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 72 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 96 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 108 hours

Assignment NOT submitted within 108 hours

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Critique of a Blog Entry ()

• Marks: 4
• Due Date: 25-Mar-2022 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Description

Critique the blog entry that immediately follows your own blog entry. If yours is the last blog entry 48 hours after submissions are due, you will critique the first entry in the blog. Use the rubric from the Blog Entry assignment when writing your critique.

Submission

• submit a well-formatted pdf document on URcourses
• target length: 1-2 pages

Grading

This assignment is worth 4 marks, according to the following rubric:

Rubric

DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Evaluation according to rubric (1) criteria_COB Choose... Exemplary (+): Thorough, honest, and constructive evaluation Exemplary: Thorough, honest, and constructive evaluation Exemplary (-): Thorough, honest, and constructive evaluation Sufficient (+): Honest and constructive evaluation Sufficient: Honest and constructive evaluation Sufficient (-): Honest and constructive evaluation Developing (+): Insufficient effort put into evaluation Developing: Insufficient effort put into evaluation Developing (-): Insufficient effort put into evaluation Needs Improvement: Evaluation not evident

Critique (3) criteria_COB Choose... Exemplary (+): Provides a substantial assessment of the entry, including the strength of the position taken by the author and the quality of the references used Exemplary: Provides a substantial assessment of the entry, including the strength of the position taken by the author and the quality of the references used Exemplary (-): Provides a substantial assessment of the entry, including the strength of the position taken by the author and the quality of the references used Sufficient (+): Assessment is reasonably thorough and well-presented Sufficient: Assessment is reasonably thorough and well-presented Sufficient (-): Assessment is reasonably thorough and well-presented Developing (+): Assessment is uneven. Although it may add something new, there are parts needing further development Developing: Assessment is uneven. Although it may add something new, there are parts needing further development Developing (-): Assessment is uneven. Although it may add something new, there are parts needing further development Needs Improvement: Lacking substance

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, within 24 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 48 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 72 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 96 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 108 hours

Assignment NOT submitted within 108 hours

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Assess Humaneness of Website ()

• Marks: 10
• Due Date: 04-Apr-2022 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Description

This is a group assignment and you have been assigned to a group, somewhat randomly, with either 4 or 5 members. You may communicate with your group using the Web Within-Group Discussion Forum. You are not required to use this forum for the whole assignment, but it may help to get you in touch with your fellow group members.

“An interface is humane if it is responsive to human needs and considerate of human frailties.”

As a group, you will assess the humaneness of the Department of Computer Science website in the context of the newly updated University of Regina website. Do this by testing the website content as described in this NN/group article by Hoa Loranger and this NN/group article by Kara Pernice (more focused on intranets)

Look everywhere on the site, as organized by the main links on the CS Home page. Each of the main links has additional content organized in the left-hand navigation menu. The main links are:

1. Home
2. People
3. Undergraduate
4. Graduate
5. Classes & Labs
6. Research
7. Resources
8. Contact Us

Consider these questions:

• is the content valuable to you?
• is the content accurate, up-to-date, unique, and important?
• is the valuable content accessible to you?
• is there some way that you would like to use the content, but it is not clear how to do it?
• should the content be put elsewhere (UR Courses, Faculty of Science, and so on)?

After your group members have explored the content on the website, create a summary report organized according to the main navigation structure of the site detailed above. You may use the headings below to organize your report either by each main link or as a whole .

Exploration

In-depth exploration of pages on the website.

Content Testing

Meaningful questions considered thoroughly.

Observations

Summary of what your group found.

Recommendations

Your ideas about how the website could be redesigned to make it more attractive and relevant and more humane to students and other visitors.

Submission

• 1 document (pdf) – only 1 group member needs to submit
• Target length: 1 or more pages per main navigation link

Grading

This assignment is worth 10 marks, according to the following rubric:

Rubric

DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Exploration (3) criteria_AHW Choose... Exemplary (+): Thorough Exemplary: Thorough Exemplary (-): Thorough Sufficient (+): Somewhat thorough Sufficient: Somewhat thorough Sufficient (-): Somewhat thorough Developing (+): Somewhat superficial Developing: Somewhat superficial Developing (-): Somewhat superficial Needs Improvement: Not at all thorough

Content Testing (3) criteria_AHW Choose... Exemplary (+): Questions are answered thoroughly and with specificity Exemplary: Questions are answered thoroughly and with specificity Exemplary (-): Questions are answered thoroughly and with specificity Sufficient (+): Questions are answered somewhat thoroughly and with specificity Sufficient: Questions are answered somewhat thoroughly and with specificity Sufficient (-): Questions are answered somewhat thoroughly and with specificity Developing (+): Answers are not thorough and somewhat vague Developing: Answers are not thorough and somewhat vague Developing (-): Answers are not thorough and somewhat vague Needs Improvement: Answers are not thorough nor specific

Observations (2) criteria_AHW Choose... Exemplary (+): Report clearly consolidates observations from all group members Exemplary: Report clearly consolidates observations from all group members Exemplary (-): Report clearly consolidates observations from all group members Sufficient (+): Report consolidates observations from all group members Sufficient: Report consolidates observations from all group members Sufficient (-): Report consolidates observations from all group members Developing (+): Report consolidates observations from some group members Developing: Report consolidates observations from some group members Developing (-): Report consolidates observations from some group members Needs Improvement: Observations not consolidated

Recommendations (2) criteria_AHW Choose... Exemplary (+): Clear recommendations about content Exemplary: Clear recommendations about content Exemplary (-): Clear recommendations about content Sufficient (+): Clear recommendations about most of the content Sufficient: Clear recommendations about most of the content Sufficient (-): Clear recommendations about most of the content Developing (+): Recommendations about some of the content Developing: Recommendations about some of the content Developing (-): Recommendations about some of the content Needs Improvement: Recommendations not clear

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, within 24 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 48 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 72 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 96 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 108 hours

Assignment NOT submitted within 108 hours

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Project Deliverable ()

• Marks: 20
• Due Date: 13-Apr-2022 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Project Deliverable

This is either an INDIVIDUAL or a GROUP assignment. It can be done individually or with others.

Your project can involve (for example): a book review, a wikipedia entry, researching smaller assessment/why questions, discussion of contributing to an open source project (on github, for example), writing some code to test an idea, and so forth.

As a reminder, your project must deal with class themes in some way. It is important to realize the project that you proposed (changes from the proposal, if necessary, are permitted) and connect it our discussions this semester. Your ideas about those connections are important.

Submission

Upload your finished product (as a pdf or as a link) to UR Courses.

Grading

This assignment is worth 20 marks, according to the following rubric:

Rubric

DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email

Calculator

Rubric Criteria

Topic (4) criteria_P_DELIV Choose... Exemplary (+): Actively engages an important issue related to class Exemplary: Actively engages an important issue related to class Exemplary (-): Actively engages an important issue related to class Sufficient (+): Engages an important issue related to class Sufficient: Engages an important issue related to class Sufficient (-): Engages an important issue related to class Developing (+): Somewhat engages an important issue related to class Developing: Somewhat engages an important issue related to class Developing (-): Somewhat engages an important issue related to class Needs Improvement: Does not engage an important issue related to class

Deliverable (4) criteria_P_DELIV Choose... Exemplary (+): Deliverable is used appropriately and imaginatively Exemplary: Deliverable is used appropriately and imaginatively Exemplary (-): Deliverable is used appropriately and imaginatively Sufficient (+): Deliverable is used appropriately Sufficient: Deliverable is used appropriately Sufficient (-): Deliverable is used appropriately Developing (+): Deliverable is used somewhat appropriately Developing: Deliverable is used somewhat appropriately Developing (-): Deliverable is used somewhat appropriately Needs Improvement: Deliverable is not used appropriately

Realization (4) criteria_P_DELIV Choose... Exemplary (+): Realization of approach is clear and well-formed Exemplary: Realization of approach is clear and well-formed Exemplary (-): Realization of approach is clear and well-formed Sufficient (+): Realization of approach is reasonable Sufficient: Realization of approach is reasonable Sufficient (-): Realization of approach is reasonable Developing (+): Realization of approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed Developing: Realization of approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed Developing (-): Realization of approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed Needs Improvement: Realization of approach is not clear

Connections to Class Discussions (4) criteria_P_DELIV Choose... Exemplary (+): Thoroughly connected Exemplary: Thoroughly connected Exemplary (-): Thoroughly connected Sufficient (+): Reasonably thoroughly connected Sufficient: Reasonably thoroughly connected Sufficient (-): Reasonably thoroughly connected Developing (+): Somewhat connected Developing: Somewhat connected Developing (-): Somewhat connected Needs Improvement: Not connected

Completed Plan (4) criteria_P_DELIV Choose... Exemplary (+): Ambitious and thorough Exemplary: Ambitious and thorough Exemplary (-): Ambitious and thorough Sufficient (+): Reasonably thorough Sufficient: Reasonably thorough Sufficient (-): Reasonably thorough Developing (+): Somewhat thorough Developing: Somewhat thorough Developing (-): Somewhat thorough Needs Improvement: Not thorough

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, within 24 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 48 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 72 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 96 hours

Assignment submitted late, within 108 hours

Assignment NOT submitted within 108 hours

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Exams

• 202410 Midterm
• 202010 Midterm
• 201910 Final
• 201910 Midterm
• 201710 Final
• 201710 Midterm
• 201610 Final
• 201610 Midterm
• 201510 Final
• 201510 Midterm
• 201210 Final
• 201210 Midterm
• 201010 Final
• 201010 Midterm