Difference between revisions of "Talk:FootFrame"

From ESE205 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(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:
-Positives-
+
==Proposal Review==
*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 and objectives was well thought out and the list of challenges is inclusive and acts as a list of the major learning steps that will be made this semester.
+
===Strengths===
-Negatives-
+
* 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.
+
 
*Gantt Chart is way out of scale (too big).
+
===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. Also, I think that 3d printer filament will deform too much if it is the only construction material used in this device, thus the budget is also missing components like wood framing and possibly a metal plate.
+
First, the quality of the measurements will be directly impacted by mechanical design of the sensor's housing.
-General Thoughts-
+
Flexibility, brittleness, maleability, etc., can all have an impact in the measurement.
*Project seems interesting but rather simple if I am interpreting it correctly. It seems to me that the entire project will involve a platform and weight sensors that will provide an input to the Arduino which will display the subtraction of the two separate values to the user. It seems to me that the feedback would be more useful if it involved a breakdown of weight distribution for different parts of each foot to illuminate, for example, whether someone doing a squat is bearing the majority of their weight in their toes or in their heels.
+
Yet no comment or budget item addresses this issue.
*A note about the load sensors: given that the current goal of the project is to provide feedback about the load differential between feet, the associated load sensors must be laid out in a symmetrical pattern. This seems difficult with the current set of four 50 kg sensors, and one 200kg sensor. Also, given the maximum capacity of the load sensors, the user (if he or she is a weightlifter) will need to ensure that the combined weight of them and the weight they are lifting is less than 220 lbs.
+
 
 +
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 12:21, 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)