1 / 11

AdviseUP: Mark II

AdviseUP: Mark II. Team Hopworks : Kekai Ariola Eric Bergquist Megan Yamamoto. Faculty Advisor: Tammy VanDeGrift Industry Advisors: Brian Toole and Sam Burich Other Contributors: Dr. Kenneth Lulay (Client) Ronan Cranley (WAS ) Jacob Caniparoli (WAS) . Background.

makoto
Download Presentation

AdviseUP: Mark II

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AdviseUP: Mark II Team Hopworks: Kekai Ariola Eric Bergquist Megan Yamamoto Faculty Advisor: Tammy VanDeGrift Industry Advisors: Brian Toole and Sam Burich Other Contributors: Dr. Kenneth Lulay (Client) Ronan Cranley (WAS) Jacob Caniparoli (WAS)

  2. Background • Advising Process at UP • Advisees meet with their Advisor every semester • AdviseUP created to facilitate this process • Notable Features • Advisee can view and change schedule • Templates: sample schedule for a major

  3. AdviseUP: Mark II • Application is using live data • Scope of project extended to include all undergraduate advisees at UP

  4. Demo • KekaiAriola as...............................................................Kelsey Abe • Megan Yamamoto as.....................................................Dr. Tammy VanDeGrift • Eric Bergquist as............................................................The Narrator

  5. Technical Details • Technologies • ASP.NET, JavaScript, C#, SQL Server • Restructured SQL database connected to Materialized Views of Banner data

  6. Data Flow

  7. Results • Application testing conducted on April 3rd • 45 Advisees tested the application and gave feedback • 3.63 average ease of use score on a scale of 1(hard) to 5 (easy) • 93% of testers said they would use the application

  8. User Comments • “I liked them. They helped see very clearly what needed to be fixed.” • “Only 5 semesters visible at a time. Drag and drop doesn't work if you want to drop on a previous or future semester that isn't currently visible.”

  9. Project Challenges • Banner Data / Materialized Views • What, where, how data is stored • Required a redesign of the Internal Database • LDAP vs. CAS authentication • Policy considerations • Template creation • Data consistency and purging

  10. Conclusion • Scheduling and advising application • Extended existing project • Could be used next year at UP

  11. Questions Special Thanks To: Brian Toole Tammy VanDeGrift

More Related