Fixed CS 131 and CS 131 and other classes you refer to use inconsistent dashing. You’ll need to decide how you want to use the dash when referring to class name and number.
There are just way too many dashes happening on this page - just sayin’.
I will consider changing Thumbnail graphic for main page is too busy. I can’t see what it is or how it relates to computer science. The graphic should communicate where it will take me.
Fixed Inconsistent use of acronyms. For example, you have Associate of Arts (AA) but you don’t put an acronym for Associate of Science. In some of the pages throughout the text book, you use acronyms and yet you do not spell them out.
Fixed On the main page, I’m not sure why you say Degree / Course of Study. What’s the difference? Is this lingo I’m unfamiliar with? In the text following you use “-or-“ and I’m not sure why you do that. You can either explain it to me or you can change it.
Fixed - removed (), can't make make links on this page The Author’s email address should not be in parentheses and should be a clickable link. Also under Author is Math Science - Computer Science. I don’t understand why that is there and not under another title called Department. These should probably also link to the department page/pages.
First Impression Get Started:
The layout introduced in Course Organization needs to adhere all the way through the book, specifically the color scheme. Here are some of the pages I noticed that weren’t styled to the colors: • Course Organization Fixed • Course Rationale Fixed • Diversity and it’s topic units/subtopics Fixed • All topic units in Introduction > History Fixed • All topic units in Introduction > Concepts Fixed • The von Neumann Model Fixed • Program Flow TODO. Not working as expected • All the pages under About Won't Do. These pags of not part of the book's course materials, only nomenclature
Diversity - MARK: Please update this topic with more current information!!! Also, I'd like to review it again after you make these updates
I think you already did this Call objects on the page by their designated term consistently. For example, you have a graphic in Course Organization that indicates the top right as the NavBar. In the same page, you call that same object a Nav Menu and in the next topic, Course Information, you call it the Navigation Bar.
OK, cool Definitions for the objects on the page can be improved. I will work on these.
Fixed Under History, the Answer to the Question doesn’t match what you said in the section on History under Introduction. You say 2400 BCE is the answer when in History, it says 5000 years of technological advancement and in the Prehistory subsection, you say the clay counting tool was used…which was in 4000 BCE. Also, the question has a typo in the parentheses.
Fixed, I think after correcting an error It’s really hard to get back to this page from another page.
First Impression of Introduction TODO I will think about this one. It is not part of the course materials The sidebar menu is different from other sidebar menus: spacing and the font. Please correct.
It is not part of the course materials The format of Introduction, Main, and Conclusion is not used here. Navigation within the History page to the linked topic unit pages are different, too.
Fixed by you Under Diversity, you have bulleted list of three items that discuss metrics of women and people of color. The first bullet uses a fraction, the second use percentages. You need to stick to one type of unit when listing these, as they share a list, and therefore, are somewhat related (parallelism).
Won't Do - I'm going to retain the structure from Chemeketa Community College For Prehistory, you need to define what that is because if I asked students what the difference between Prehistory and History, how confident are you that they’d know?
Fixed - removed Intro/Conclusion to match other Section pages Concepts has a Conclusion title, but no content beneath it.
Fixed, please check in Safari again The Concepts Key’s sideways text overlaps the definitions and are difficult to read in my browser (Safari).
In this class book, should it contain the Hancock course description? Here is what I see: Introduction to computer architecture and assembly language programming. Topics include data representation and conversion, assembly language programming, digital design, and basic processor architecture.
Fixed Course Organization - The graphic text needs to be updated. The “NavBar Selection with Underline” should be changed to “NavBar Section with Underline”.
Fixed, AssemblyCourse Organization > Introduction: Do you want to call a section “Assembly” as it is now, or do you want to call it “Assembly Programming” as it is called in the text of this section?
Fixed Course > Introduction: Diversity in Computer Science <-This topic unit does not match the topic title.
Fixed Course Organization > History: I didn’t know how to put bullets into the text, but you’ll see where I wanted you to put bullets: #History We'll learn about:
- The progress of computer technology through the ages
- The core concepts of abstraction and algorithms as used in computer organization
- The differences between analog and digital computer systems
- How specific-use computers gave way to the general-use computer we use today
Fixed Course > Foundations: I didn’t know how to put numbered items in the text, but you’ll see where I wanted to put them: Finally, we will dive down to the lowest levels of computer hardware: transistors. We'll understand:
- How transistors create circuits to perform numeric and logical operations.
- How circuits are used to store information, route data, and ultimately create a microarchitecture that can execute complex programs.
TODO Diversity in Computer Science The current makeup: is that in the U.S. or in the world? This section needs to be update and cited, like with information in this article in 2018: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/01/09/diversity-in-the-stem-workforce-varies-widely-across-jobs/
Or this article from 2021: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/04/01/stem-jobs-see-uneven-progress-in-increasing-gender-racial-and-ethnic-diversity/
Check out the table in this report (you gotta scroll down a bit): https://cse-climate.engin.umich.edu/reports/climate-dei-reports/cse-climate-dei-report-20-21/
Reformatting the History Pages Fixed all pages Fixed Prehistory, Dawn, 1st Generation History > Prehistory: Some sections are lacking content or have some strange links showing that could go somewhere or should be a graphic. Also, why is “binary numbers” in a different font/appearance here?
History > Prehistory: This section needs a complete revamp. It’s repetitive and can be shortened to the essential points. I’d like to rewrite it if you are open to it. Also, there’s whole topic content missing.
I can’t seem to open the pages for all the different computer generations on the actual web page.
============ Won't Do - Intro is not part of the course, but exists to set the stage. Foundations cover topics and concepts that are part of the course, tests, and assignments
Introduction section and the Foundations section can be combined. The Introduction talk about Pascale and Babbage and so forth, while Foundations talks about Pioneers, all of whom could be considered “Pioneers”. The devices can be interwoven as part of your intro text about using fingers in the Pioneers topic. If you want, I can help you smoosh those together, or give you tips where you can put them together, make for some quick reading and keep the bulk of the information as talking points in your class.
=================== Introduction Section > Concepts
You use both these terms and I’m unsure if they are the same thing: Abstraction Hierarchy of Computer Organization and Computer Organization Abstraction Layers.
Introduction is missing information? Fixed
Fixed Abstraction topic unit: What is the difference between Natural Language and Human Language and Assembly Language? You’ll need to define those somewhere before you use them in the table, so when they come up, we know what you mean. BTW, I do see you define Natural Language on the Algorithm page, but that is too late.
Fixed, I think. I don't see the issueAbstraction topic unit: An Algorithm is ** a Problem. Missing a word between asterisks?
Fixed. Yep, that was kinda messy. Made a more specific example The two sentences below don’t really help me understand anything. I don’t know what you’re trying to say about the first three layers, while you eventually get to what you mean about “general-purpose things”. I don’t think you should use “thing” within the definition. and “might be” seems off if you are defining something and now saying it “might be” the next prime number calculator…are you saying that’s an example of what the first three could do? I’m confused. Here are the sentences:
The gap in between Program and Instruction Set Architecture exists because the first three abstraction layers are specific things and the last four are general-purpose things.
Problem, Algorithm, and Programs might be a specific item that calculates the next prime number.
The rest of that section needs work, too. Let’s go over it and see what you are driving at. Here is the rest of that section:
The Instruction Set Architecture down to Devices are all a set of fixed software and hardware elements that can be used to solve many different problems.
In addition, The transition from Problem to Algorithm is interesting. A problem is expressed as a deficiency or need, whereas the Algorithm describes a way to avoid or fix that Problem.
In Computer Organization, we'll focus on the Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) layer. But first, we need to understand how Devices create Circuits, that make the Microarchitecture needed to support the ISA.
This last sentence has a lot to say, so we need to talk on how to unpack it better: Abstraction layers in Computer Organization start with a Problem to be solved and presents that problem (given that the problem is solved using a computer) to a Program that is rendered in the computer's ISA that ultimately gets represented in Devices.
Fixed amd will be aware when updating Key point from editing: be consistent with using “we”. When you use “you”, you are changing the point of view. Stay with “we”.