Purpose: Summative evidence for CO-04 (briefs, prompts, review loops), CO-05 (tool/hosting justification in context), and CO-01 (short applied reflection per course mapping). Judgement: S / NS only.

Time guide: 60–75 minutes.

Assessment tasks

Task 1 — One-page brief (CO-04)

Produce a one-page project brief for your capstone topic (or a realistic placeholder approved by your provider). Include all of these headings:

  • Goal
  • Audience
  • Pages / sections (1–3 pages)
  • Tone
  • Must-haves (≥5 bullets)
  • Non-goals (≥3 bullets)
  • Accessibility intent

Bullet or short-paragraph style is fine; plain language.

Task 2 — Prompt upgrade (CO-04)

Weak prompt: “Make me a nice website for my project.”

Rewrite it as a strong prompt of 150–250 words that includes: constraints (tech/files), ≥4 acceptance criteria (structure or accessibility), section order or wireframe-in-words, and desired output format (e.g. separate code blocks for index.html and styles.css).

Task 3 — Personal review loop (CO-04 / CO-03)

Write a numbered checklist of at least seven steps for your generate → check → refine loop when using AI on static HTML/CSS. At least three steps must reference specific checks (e.g. heading order, main, focus, contrast)—not only “review the page.”

Task 4 — Short applied reflection (CO-01)

In 6–10 sentences, answer: Why might you still use AI assistants even after you improve your HTML/CSS fundamentals? Discuss at least one benefit and one responsibility that stays with you (e.g. verification, ethics). Avoid copying course slogans without explanation.

Task 5 — Hosting intention (CO-05)

In 2–4 sentences, state which class of static hosting you intend for the capstone (e.g. Netlify/Vercel-class, or own server) and one reason tied to cost, privacy, or fit for a 1–3 page site.

Marking guide (Satisfactory / Not Satisfactory)

Criterion Satisfactory (S) Not Satisfactory (NS)
Task 1 — Brief All seven sections present; must-haves/non-goals meet minimum counts; scope fits 1–3 pages. Missing sections, or fewer bullets than required, or brief implies >3 pages without narrowing.
Task 2 — Prompt Word count 150–250 (assessor may allow ±10%); ≥4 clear acceptance criteria; constraints and output format present; coherent with a static site. Weak prompt barely changed, or missing criteria/constraints, or far under/over length with no substance.
Task 3 — Loop ≥7 numbered steps; ≥3 are specific technical checks; plausible order. Fewer than seven steps, or mostly vague, or fewer than three specific checks.
Task 4 — Reflection Benefit + responsibility both addressed; original reasoning; length met. One-sided rant, or no responsibility, or fewer than six sentences of substance.
Task 5 — Hosting Names a credible class of option; reason is specific to static hosting context. Vague (“the internet”) or no link to cost/privacy/fit.

Overall module judgement: S only if all rows are S. Otherwise NS.

What good looks like (examples)

Task 2 (criteria extract — count toward four):

  1. Valid HTML5; index.html + styles.css only — no frameworks.
  2. Exactly one <h1> on the home page matching the brief title.
  3. All images have meaningful alt or alt="" if decorative.
  4. Nav links work with relative paths; focus visible on links.
  5. Mobile layout: contact block readable without horizontal scroll.

Task 3 (loop extract):

  1. Paste brief section into IDE chat.
  2. Generate only index.html header + nav.
  3. Save; open in browser.
  4. Check one h1 and landmark tags.
  5. Tab through links — focus visible?
  6. Fix contrast on links if needed.
  7. Re-run checklist before next section prompt.

Task 5:

I plan to use Netlify drag-and-drop — free tier, HTTPS by default, fits static files only, no server to maintain for a two-page hobby site.

Exemplar responses (for assessors)

Task 2: Count words excluding the task heading; accept slightly shorter if criteria density is high—use holistic judgement at AQF 5.

Task 1: Accessibility intent should mention semantics, keyboard/focus, or Lighthouse-style evidence—not “we care about everyone” alone.

Alignment: This module assessment doubles as preparation for the capstone; do not require capstone submission here.