View this PageEdit this PageAttachments to this PageHistory of this PageHomeRecent ChangesSearch the SwikiHelp Guide
Hotspots: Admin Pages | Turn-in Site |
Current Links: Cases Final Project Summer 2007

7 Key - (6-Design): Lex

Rubric
The question is mostly about form, not the specific solution. The breakdown is:


6 points overall on UML notation. I was pretty generous. The most common deductions were:
6 points each for item in the scenario:
4 points for the explanation seeming like a reasonable solution. In particular, -2 for the common omission of any way to map ID's back to Player's.
2 points for representing the solution in the UML diagram. For the most common example, if GameConsole is keeping track of scores, then there need to be attributes in class GameConsole to allow this, and the attributes need to leave room for more than one score.


Overall Comments

People did a great job dividing the problem up into classes. The UML diagram seemed to have a pretty reasonable set of classes.

A lot of people drew in talks-to links on the diagram. If you do this, be sure to make them look different than has-a links. I didn't count off for this unless it was really blatant, but I'd guess the final will be graded more severely. Has-a is a semi-permanent relationship. Talks-to is transient.


Finally, a surprising number of people had good looking diagrams but had trouble with the text. The text should be easier: it's just telling a story about how your classes are going tofunction.



This question format

I like it! No more looking at these vague collections of boxes and arrows and trying to intuit whether they understood it. Some things that might make it better:

Be firmer on the requirements, if possible. Specifying smart bracelets was an annoying way to simplify the problem.
Insist that the three questions go together into a full scenario. Thus, you can't leave out an important step just because none of the questions ask specifically enough.

Link to this Page