For your final project, you will create a short (12-15 minute) video explaining a topic, technology, or concept in computer security in detail. You will divide the video into two sections. In the first, explain the topic to a lay audience, such as users of your chosen concept. For example, if you choose HTTPS, you will first explain it to a lay, mostly non-technical web browsing audience, such as employees at a company or users of a particular service, making simplifications and analogies as necessary. Then, you will spend the second half of the video explaining the same topic thing, but to a technical audience. So continuing the HTTPS example, you would then explain it to an audience of web developers and system administrators, who need to work with HTTPS technically. The purpose of this assignment is to refine ability to communicate security topics and risks at a level appropriate to your audience. In order to do so, you will need to carefully refine your understanding of your topic, understanding its subtleties and nuances, and know which of those nuances are important to convey (and using what presentation) for difference audiences.
In addition to turning in the video, please turn in a one page written document explaining the presentation choices you made for both audiences, and the tradeoffs you faced between technical precision and clarity.
Since your video will describe the topic twice, once for a lay audience and once for an expert audience, you'll need to identify your audiences. Some examples:
Preliminary due date #2: Friday, 2 December 2016 (5pm)
Upload to Catalyst a PDF file that contains (1) your group members’ names and UWNetIDs and (2) an outline of your presentation and (3) a list of references that you have already used when researching your topic. Identify your lay audience and your expert audience. The outline does not need to be super-detailed -- a single page or half page would be sufficient, as long as you can convey to us that you have a plan for your presentation. In it, you should make sure to include which concepts you'll be including or not including in the "lay" part and the "expert" part, and who your lay and expert audiences are.
Final due date: Friday, 9 December 2016 (5pm)
Upload your presentation video to Catalyst. Submit a 12- to 15-minute video file. You may choose to use CamStudio (Windows only), QuickTime or Powerpoint’s built-in slide-show recording tools.
Also upload your presentation slides in PowerPoint or PDF format, and your one page document explaining your choices in which material to present and how to present it to the two separate audiences. Your group members’ names and UWNetIDs should be on the first slide.
You do not need to stand in front of a projector and record yourself and the slides with a video camera. You can just record what your computer displays (the animated slides) and what you say (the oral presentation). If you do use a video camera to record your presentation, then make sure that the slides are within the view of the video camera.
Your presentation needs to also include references to the main resources that you used to inform your presentation (websites, books, standards documents, source code, etc).
You must include in your slide deck and your oral presentation at least one slide on the legal or ethical (or both) issues associated with your topic in question.
Collaborative or not: You may work in groups of up to three people, though you are not required to work in groups. All group members should introduce themselves at the start of the presentation, and all group members should speak during the presentation.
We expect to grade according to the following rubric, or something similar.
| Content | 4 - Exceptional | 3 - Admirable | 2 - Acceptable | 1 - Desire More |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriateness to Audience | The material presentation is excellently targetted for both the lay and expert audiences, appropriately choosing between simpifications, analogies, and detail in each section. | The material is at an appropriate level for each audience. | The material for the lay audience is sometimes too advanced or complicated, or the material for the expert audience leaves out critical technical details. | The presentation fails to distinguish between audiences, or uses drastically inappropriate levels of detail and sophistication for each audience. |
| Strength of Content | An abundance of material clearly related to the topic is presented. Points are clearly made and supported. | Sufficient information with many good points made, uneven balance and little consistency. | There is a great deal of information that is not clearly integrated or connected to the presentation topic. | Goal of presentation unclear, information included that does not support presentation topic or claims in any way. |
| Organizations | Information is presented in a logical and interesting sequence which the audience can follow. Flows well. First three slides make it very clear what the presentation is about (e.g., what the main points are, what the main goals of the presentation are). | Information is presented in a logical sequence which the audience can follow. | Audience has difficulty following the presentation because the presentation jumps around and lacks clear transitions. | Audience cannot understand presentation because there is no sequence of information. |
| Visuals | Excellent visuals that are tied to the overall topic of the presentation. | Appropriate visuals are used and explained by speaker. | Visuals are used but not explained or put in context. | Little or no visuals, too much text on slides. |
| Mechanics | Presentation has no misspellings or grammatical errors. | Presentation has no more than two misspellings and/or grammatical errors. | Presentation has three misspellings and/or grammatical errors. | Presentation has many spelling and/or grammatical errors. |
| Background References | Presentation clearly based on an in-depth investigation into related works and important references. | References included, but lack of strong connection between references and the presented material. | No references given, but presentation seems factually correct. | No references given, untrue statements made. |
| Discussion of legal / ethical issues | N/A | Thoughtful consideration of legal / ethical issues, including at least one slide on the topic. | Legal / ethical slide included, but treatment only superficially considered. | Legal / ethical slide not included. |
| Submission Details | 4 - Exceptional | 3 - Admirable | 2 - Acceptable | 1 - Desire More |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timing 12-15 minutes | Within allotted time. | N/A | Within 30 seconds of allotted time, +/- | Too long or too short by more than 30 seconds. |
| Names and UW NetIDs include on first slide; video uploaded in the correct format; slides uploaded in the correct format. | Everything submitted in the correct format. | N/A | N/A | At least one portion of the project not submitted in the correct format. |
| All presenters introduce themselves at start of presentation | Yes | N/A | N/A | No |
| Division of presentation | All presenters speak for roughly the same amount of time. | N/A | N/A | One or more presenters speak for significantly longer than others; one or more presenters speak for significantly shorter than others. |
| Verbal Skills | 4 - Exceptional | 3 - Admirable | 2 - Acceptable | 1 - Desire More |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enthusiasm | Demonstrates a strong positive feeling about topic during entire presentation. | Occasionally shows positive feelings about topic. | Shows some negativity toward topic. | Shows absolutely no interest in topic. |
| Speaking Skills | Uses a clear voice and speaks at a good pace so audience members can hear presentation, does not read off slides. | Presenter’s voice is clear. The pace is a little slow or fast at times. Generally easy to hear presentation. | Presenter’s voice volume is low. The pace is much too fast/slow. Difficult to hear. | Presenter mumbles, talks very fast, or speaks too quietly. Very difficult to hear or understand. |