CS 733 in Fall 2022

Schedule

Code

• Code Directory

Links

• Syllabus (pdf)
• UR Courses

Assignments

Assignment 1 ()

• Marks: 8
• Due Date: 03-Oct-2022 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Assignment 1

Write 2 WebGL programs (HTML and JavaScript) to generate a Sierpiński Gasket (as named by Benoit B Mandelbrot) in 2D. One of your programs will use the random algorithm (Chaos Game, introduced by Barnsley) and the other will use the recursive algorithm. You may use the sample code discussed in class as starting points for your work.

• your HTML should use Bootstrap, including some controls to adjust some parameters in your code (including but not limited to the number of points for the random algorithm and the number of subdivisions for the recursive algorithm)
• your code should use different colours when rendering (to highlight the different transformations used: 3 colours to distinguish the last transformation and 9 colours to distinguish the last 2 transformations)
• you should comment your code, explain the WebGL functions used, and discuss the how to determine the settings for the highest precision image that can be displayed without doing extra work

Grading

This assignment is worth 8 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

Implementation (6) criteria_GL01 Choose... Exemplary (+): Code functions as required and code is easily readable Exemplary: Code functions as required and code is easily readable Exemplary (-): Code functions as required and code is easily readable Sufficient (+): Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Sufficient: Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Sufficient (-): Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Developing (+): Completed but code does not function as required Developing: Completed but code does not function as required Developing (-): Completed but code does not function as required Needs Improvement: Not completed

Comments (2) criteria_GL01 Choose... Exemplary (+): Comments well written and explain rationale Exemplary: Comments well written and explain rationale Exemplary (-): Comments well written and explain rationale Sufficient (+): Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Sufficient: Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Sufficient (-): Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Developing (+): Comments not consistently done Developing: Comments not consistently done Developing (-): Comments not consistently done Needs Improvement: Little to no comments in code

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late

Academic dishonesty

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Assignment 2 ()

• Marks: 8
• Due Date: 17-Oct-2022 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Assignment 2

Grading

This assignment is worth 8 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

Implementation (6) criteria_GL02 Choose... Exemplary (+): Code functions as required and code is easily readable Exemplary: Code functions as required and code is easily readable Exemplary (-): Code functions as required and code is easily readable Sufficient (+): Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Sufficient: Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Sufficient (-): Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Developing (+): Completed but code does not function as required Developing: Completed but code does not function as required Developing (-): Completed but code does not function as required Needs Improvement: Not completed

Comments (2) criteria_GL02 Choose... Exemplary (+): Comments well written and explain rationale Exemplary: Comments well written and explain rationale Exemplary (-): Comments well written and explain rationale Sufficient (+): Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Sufficient: Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Sufficient (-): Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Developing (+): Comments not consistently done Developing: Comments not consistently done Developing (-): Comments not consistently done Needs Improvement: Little to no comments in code

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late

Academic dishonesty

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Assignment 3 ()

• Marks: 8
• Due Date: 31-Oct-2022 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Assignment 3

Grading

This assignment is worth 8 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

Implementation (6) criteria_GL03 Choose... Exemplary (+): Code functions as required and code is easily readable Exemplary: Code functions as required and code is easily readable Exemplary (-): Code functions as required and code is easily readable Sufficient (+): Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Sufficient: Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Sufficient (-): Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Developing (+): Completed but code does not function as required Developing: Completed but code does not function as required Developing (-): Completed but code does not function as required Needs Improvement: Not completed

Comments (2) criteria_GL03 Choose... Exemplary (+): Comments well written and explain rationale Exemplary: Comments well written and explain rationale Exemplary (-): Comments well written and explain rationale Sufficient (+): Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Sufficient: Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Sufficient (-): Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Developing (+): Comments not consistently done Developing: Comments not consistently done Developing (-): Comments not consistently done Needs Improvement: Little to no comments in code

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late

Academic dishonesty

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Assignment 4 ()

• Marks: 8
• Due Date: 21-Nov-2022 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Assignment 4

Grading

This assignment is worth 8 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

Implementation (6) criteria_GL04 Choose... Exemplary (+): Code functions as required and code is easily readable Exemplary: Code functions as required and code is easily readable Exemplary (-): Code functions as required and code is easily readable Sufficient (+): Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Sufficient: Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Sufficient (-): Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Developing (+): Completed but code does not function as required Developing: Completed but code does not function as required Developing (-): Completed but code does not function as required Needs Improvement: Not completed

Comments (2) criteria_GL04 Choose... Exemplary (+): Comments well written and explain rationale Exemplary: Comments well written and explain rationale Exemplary (-): Comments well written and explain rationale Sufficient (+): Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Sufficient: Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Sufficient (-): Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Developing (+): Comments not consistently done Developing: Comments not consistently done Developing (-): Comments not consistently done Needs Improvement: Little to no comments in code

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late

Academic dishonesty

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Assignment 5 ()

• Marks: 8
• Due Date: 05-Dec-2022 @ 23:59
• Discuss
• Submit

Assignment 5

Grading

This assignment is worth 8 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

Implementation (6) criteria_GL05 Choose... Exemplary (+): Code functions as required and code is easily readable Exemplary: Code functions as required and code is easily readable Exemplary (-): Code functions as required and code is easily readable Sufficient (+): Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Sufficient: Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Sufficient (-): Code functions as required but code is not so easily readable Developing (+): Completed but code does not function as required Developing: Completed but code does not function as required Developing (-): Completed but code does not function as required Needs Improvement: Not completed

Comments (2) criteria_GL05 Choose... Exemplary (+): Comments well written and explain rationale Exemplary: Comments well written and explain rationale Exemplary (-): Comments well written and explain rationale Sufficient (+): Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Sufficient: Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Sufficient (-): Comments well written but do not fully explain rationale Developing (+): Comments not consistently done Developing: Comments not consistently done Developing (-): Comments not consistently done Needs Improvement: Little to no comments in code

Penalties

None (on-time and followed instructions)

Instructions not followed

Assignment submitted late, but within 48 hours

Assignment submitted more than 48 hours late

Academic dishonesty

Output

Evaluate Copy Output to Clipboard Clear Form

Exams

Feedback