Difference between revisions of "Talk:FootFrame"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Nwschmetter (talk | contribs) (Created page with "-Positives- *The real world applications included in the overview are both great ideas and make me excited to see the demo. *I believe that the difference between challenges a...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | ==Proposal Review== | |
| − | *The real world applications included in the overview are | + | |
| − | * | + | ===Strengths=== |
| − | + | * The real world applications included in the overview are exciting, which means that the demo will be fun and insightful. | |
| − | *Initial paragraph and “overview” have a lot of overlap. | + | * The difference between challenges and objectives was well thought out, and the list of challenges is inclusive. Indeed, the challenges act as a list of the most important tasks to be solved throughout the semester. |
| − | *The word “would/should” is used as opposed to “will” and gives the impression of uncertainty with regard to the final outcome of the project. | + | * Overall this proposal is clear regarding goals and steps, a fact that is deeply appreciated. |
| − | *The “reach goals” section should be moved to be an objective | + | |
| − | + | ===Weaknesses=== | |
| − | *Does not mention TA in "Team Members" section | + | This project will face two major challenges that are not properly addressed in the proposal, neither in the budget nor in the Gantt chart. |
| − | *Budget is missing components like the Arduino, the display screen, and whatever will be powering the device. | + | First, the quality of the measurements will be directly impacted by mechanical design of the sensor's housing. |
| − | + | Flexibility, brittleness, maleability, etc., can all have an impact in the measurement. | |
| − | * | + | Yet no comment or budget item addresses this issue. |
| − | + | ||
| + | Second, the impact and applicability of this prototype will be determined by the type of feedback the user receives. | ||
| + | Hence, it is not enough to just measure the difference between forces applied by each feet, you also need to provide basic information regarding what is good, bad, desirable, or in need of correction. | ||
| + | That must be determined by an algorithm, thus your proposal should reflect the work that said algorithm will need to be fully developed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Other comments: | ||
| + | * The proposal is poorly formatted in general. The Gantt chart is gigantic, and there are no properly defined sections. The budget is hard to read. Please take a look at other groups' proposals and their source code to fix yours. | ||
| + | * Initial paragraph and “overview” have a lot of overlap. | ||
| + | * The word “would/should” is used as opposed to “will” and gives the impression of uncertainty with regard to the final outcome of the project. | ||
| + | * The “reach goals” section should be moved to be an objective. | ||
| + | * Does not mention TA in "Team Members" section | ||
| + | * Budget is missing components like the Arduino, the display screen, and whatever will be powering the device. | ||
| + | * Why are you buying 4 50Kg sensors and one load cell? Is this a technical constraint, or a design decision? If the latter is true, then you should first decide the type of feedback you want to provide (e.g., weight divided by foot section), and then choose the appropriate sensor. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Hgonzale|Humberto]] 12:21, 7 February 2017 (CST) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:21, 7 February 2017
Proposal Review
Strengths
- The real world applications included in the overview are exciting, which means that the demo will be fun and insightful.
- The difference between challenges and objectives was well thought out, and the list of challenges is inclusive. Indeed, the challenges act as a list of the most important tasks to be solved throughout the semester.
- Overall this proposal is clear regarding goals and steps, a fact that is deeply appreciated.
Weaknesses
This project will face two major challenges that are not properly addressed in the proposal, neither in the budget nor in the Gantt chart. First, the quality of the measurements will be directly impacted by mechanical design of the sensor's housing. Flexibility, brittleness, maleability, etc., can all have an impact in the measurement. Yet no comment or budget item addresses this issue.
Second, the impact and applicability of this prototype will be determined by the type of feedback the user receives. Hence, it is not enough to just measure the difference between forces applied by each feet, you also need to provide basic information regarding what is good, bad, desirable, or in need of correction. That must be determined by an algorithm, thus your proposal should reflect the work that said algorithm will need to be fully developed.
Other comments:
- The proposal is poorly formatted in general. The Gantt chart is gigantic, and there are no properly defined sections. The budget is hard to read. Please take a look at other groups' proposals and their source code to fix yours.
- Initial paragraph and “overview” have a lot of overlap.
- The word “would/should” is used as opposed to “will” and gives the impression of uncertainty with regard to the final outcome of the project.
- The “reach goals” section should be moved to be an objective.
- Does not mention TA in "Team Members" section
- Budget is missing components like the Arduino, the display screen, and whatever will be powering the device.
- Why are you buying 4 50Kg sensors and one load cell? Is this a technical constraint, or a design decision? If the latter is true, then you should first decide the type of feedback you want to provide (e.g., weight divided by foot section), and then choose the appropriate sensor.
Humberto 12:21, 7 February 2017 (CST)
