SE251:Session6Group6
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Assessment criteria | Score |
|---|---|
| The session content is relevant to the course | 5 |
| The session has been a useful aid to your own learning | 4 |
| The team presenting the session has demonstrated that they have understood what they have presented | 3 |
| You have learnt something new from the session | 3 |
Justification for the above scores
- Postmortem on assignment 3.
- Different type of solution can be seen.
- Good knowledge of UML, with clear drawing done on computer and presented on slides.
- Gem shape co-ordinates and width are mistaken it seems.
- Only 1 boolean needed in Dynamic Rectangle, whether it should be colour'd or not.
- The check "if ( A || (A && B) ) to detect collisions could have been simplified to "if (A)"
- Wouldn't modifying the shape template class to work for the dynamic rectangle create a lot of useless variables and methods for the other shapes?
- Dynamic Rectangle's solution were rather complicated.
- It appears the Dynamic Rectangle solution were wrong...
- The second Dynamic Rectangle did not reset the colour back...................
- The colour changing shape was interesting.
- The aggregated shape was interesting, although there are easier solution but her solution has it's advantage of being more robust, and easier to switch between more shapes.
One aspect of the session that was particularly good
- Again, the slide show was used, which was good.
- The presentation integrated the new material we have been learning (UML/sequence diagrams) which added a bit of helpful revision to the postmortem.
One part of the session that could have been improved
- Could speak louder.
- The click click sound was annoying at start. (not sure if it's from them tho)
- Test the code before the presentation
Peer assessors present
- Abdulrahman Hizam Omran (aomr001)
- Hung Pan (hpan027)
- Tzu-Lun Wong (twon069)
- Zijie Yang (zyan057)