Extensions, academic integrity, the week 11 consent arrangements, and what the course prototype is and is not allowed to do.

Course-wide rules, so the briefs can link to one place instead of restating them. Anything not covered here is covered by Slop University’s general coursework rules.

Extensions#

Ask before the deadline. A short extension — up to five days — needs a sentence saying what happened and does not need a document. Longer than that, or after the deadline has passed, goes through the University’s standard process.

The reason short extensions are easy is that this course’s deadlines are deliberately placed to be movable: none of the three assessments blocks the next week’s teaching, and Assignment 2 is due on a day with no class precisely so that a late submission does not cost you a studio.

Academic integrity#

The ordinary rule applies: the work you submit is yours, and anything that is not yours is attributed.

Two things worth being explicit about, because this course invites both:

Working together is expected in the studio. The pair audits in week 7 and the observation rotation in week 11 are collaborative by design. What you submit afterwards is your own analysis of what happened. If a classmate found the bug, say so — “my partner broke my cancel guarantee by cancelling mid-stall” is a stronger sentence than one that quietly takes the credit, and it is marked as such.

Generated code is allowed and must be declared. Say what you used it for, in a line. The thing this course actually assesses — whether you can say what your interface claims and what supports each claim — is not made easier by generating the interface, and is usually made harder, because you end up defending decisions you did not make.

The week 11 observation: consent and data#

Week 11 has students observe each other using their prototypes. The arrangements are fixed and not negotiable by individual students or tutors.

Participation is voluntary, in both roles. You may decline to be observed, to observe, or both, for any reason, and you do not have to give one. Tell a tutor before the session and you are given the structured walkthrough instead. It is graded identically, on the same criterion, and it is not a lesser task.

Consent is read aloud before each round, from a supplied script, and a participant may stop at any point without explanation. Stopping mid-round is not a failed session; it is a recorded outcome.

What is recorded. Handwritten notes only: what the participant did, and what they said, in their words. No audio, no video, no screen recording, and no names. Record sheets identify participants as P1, P2, P3.

Where it goes. Record sheets are the student’s own; they are quoted in the Assignment 3 evaluation record and are not collected by the course. Nothing from the session is published, and a quoted line may not be attributed to an identifiable person.

Marking does not depend on participating. The criterion asks whether your conclusions are proportionate to your evidence. It does not ask how many people you watched, or whether you watched anybody.

What the prototype may and may not do#

The course prototype, upload-ui, simulates every transfer locally. That is a requirement, not a convenience, and it has a policy dimension:

• No student prototype uploads to a real service. Not to the University’s, not to a third party’s, not to your own. The simulator is the only backend, all semester.
• No real personal files as test data. The file picker accepts a real file so the interaction is honest, but the prototype never reads its contents — only its reported size. If your prototype reads bytes, that is a bug and a policy breach at once.
• Demonstration data is labelled. The supplied traces are recorded sample data shipped with the course, and anything built on them says so. The progress simulator on this site carries the same label.

Getting help#

Ask in the studio first — that is what three hours with two tutors is for. Email is for things that cannot wait until Thursday. Anything you think is wrong with this site, including a broken link or a page that contradicts another page, is worth reporting and will be fixed rather than defended.