I know it may be a little delayed, but I've been reflecting on my project proposal not being chosen. I am extremely relieved that it wasn't chosen for many of the same reasons that were brought up in class: I'm glad that I don't have to take charge of a project, I'm glad I don't actually have to plan things out thoroughly to actually complete the project, and I'm super relieved because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't know where the hell to begin on working on my project. I've also been thinking about how much work my project would have required and am really glad it wasn't chosen because it would have required a "metric-crap-ton" of work.

Overall, I'm glad I don't have to stress about leading a project, and I got my first pick for the project selection.

It took a bit of time to think things through a little more. Alas, there is always more things to think about when it comes to projects. Thus, here is my final project proposal: ArcadeStyle

Blog HW: Describe your ideal project team in exactly three words.

Main Choices:

Creative : when it comes to developing a project that starts with the entire universe but then down to a single something, you need to have a lot of creativity.

Driven : it is always important to be hardworking to actually achieve the goals of a project, otherwise nothing will get accomplished.

Teamwork : it is important to work as a team when it comes to large projects, if the team is not cohesive, and does not working properly together, the project will fall apart.

Runner-ups

Honest : it is important to me to be honest about things. If you don’t think you can complete something on time, say so; the rest of the team would be able to help. Being honest also helps team bonding by knowing that you can rely on your fellow team mates.

Professional: This can certainly cover a lot of other descriptors, but I mainly use it as a form of conduct. It is to standardize the format of interaction between the team and other stakeholders. If you act immaturely/unprofessionally others will not want to work with you.

Communicative: Communication is a key to getting things done, and is a sub-aspect of teamwork. If there is no communication between team members, confusion will takeover and no one will know who is doing what.

Review of Proposal : “Demigod”

Proposal author: Matthew Smith (artintal@unm.edu)

Reviewer: Kellen Zelle (kzelle@unm.edu)

Part 1: Proposal restatement

The purpose of this project is to create a web application that users can use to keep track of and challenge themselves in the areas of physical fitness, nutrition, and mental acuity. The mission statement is “...every person should be able to reach the level of a ‘demigod’.”

Part 2: Reviewer reaction

This is a great idea to help increase the overall health of people. Combining various other app functions into a single webapp definitely increases desirability due to the convenience of it. The major problem that I have with this proposal is the sheer size of the task at hand: the companies that developed the apps mentioned in the proposal took way longer than a mere 11 weeks to develop. Also, it appears that this app would run purely on the ‘honor rule’ in which users have to be extremely honest to the app, and with themselves, to actually make use of the app in the way it was intended: It would be way too easy for user to cheat. There is also no convenience in the way of tracking, especially when it comes to physical activities, especially for running: users would most definitely need a fitness watch to keep track of distance traveled and speed. Another thing that I feel iffy about is the mental acuity tracking; it occurs to me that this is rather hard to do, especially if you’re only taking into account GPA/courses complete/Languages known etc. There needs to be some kind of standardized measurement, and deciding on what that is will be a large debate/challenge itself.

Part 3: Quantitative Scores

Format: 4

Formatting is good. Not much else to say.

Writing: 4

Writing is good overall; there are a few spelling/grammar mistakes.

Goals and tasks: 4

The goals are stated clearly and tasks are laid out in the timeline.

Scope: 3.8

It is clear what this product is meant to do. Though it should be more detailed on communication with other applications, and hardware such as fitness trackers.

Plausibility: 2.8

This would be a very scary project to undertake in 11 weeks if your life depended on it. There are so many facets of this this project that, if not fully fleshed out, will only detract from the overall product from shoddy functionality. The sheer size of what needs to be done really makes me think that this should be a project that has a timeline of a couple of years to bring everything up to a polished, user friendly state.

Novelty: 5

If this app is successfully created and polished, it will be the only one of its kind.

Stakeholder identification: 2

You should have a section on stakeholders. Sure, you mentioned users, and other developers, but you should have them in more detail that specify their relations to the project.

Support and impact: 3.5

Good detail on initial support plans: with asking for donations and having ads on the webapp. Though one thing you should consider is having a one-time donation/subscription to remove ads for that user.

Evidence: 3.5

Some use cases would go a long way in providing how a user would use the product.

Challenges and risks: 4

Good detail on possible challenges and technological limitations.

Review of Proposal : “A/V Synthesizer”

Proposal author: Trent Small

Reviewer: Kellen Zelle (kzelle@unm.edu)

Part 1: Proposal restatement

The purpose of this project is to create an audio/visual synthesizer that takes in midi input and visually displays the audio with a range of visual effects. The software will be combined with hardware to sell to the customer.

Part 2: Reviewer reaction

It’s a really cool idea, but I think the way that you have it planned out requires the customer to do too many technical aspects to get the A/V synthesizer configured and set up. The thing that could remedy this would be to develop a user friendly GUI interface with all of the configuration options easily accessible. Another thing that was a little iffy to me was the blanket statement of ‘hardware’, there was no detail as to what the ‘hardware’; does the hardware consist of arduino’s with LED lights/projectors attached to them etc.

Part 3: Quantitative Scores

Format: 3.8

Easy to follow. Though, there could be a few more sections to provide more detail (hardware in particular). Very bare.

Writing: 3.8

Good overall. A few misspellings and grammar mistakes.

Goals and tasks: 4

The goal is very clear and the tasks are easily identifiable from the Timeline, but there should be more detail in a section of it’s own for goals and tasks.

Scope: 4

It is clear what the scope of the project is, but it may be a bit large for the time given to complete it.

Plausibility: 3

I can see being able to create an AV synthesizer that can be run on any screen that can be used with a computer. But developing the AV synthesizer and hardware to run the synthesizer over wifi seems like it may be a little unreachable given the available time.

Novelty: 4

It’s a cool idea, but there is nothing explaining how this AV synthesizers will set itself apart from other synthesizers.

Stakeholder identification: 4.5

The stakeholders are clearly identified in the proposal.

Support and impact: 3

There were no detailed plans on:

• How much the hardware would be sold to the customer for.
• Is the software portion of the project given freely or is its cost included with the hardware cost? What makes this hardware unique that a customer wouldn’t be able to buy it from somewhere else and run the software on it?
• How would you market the product for it to get into the hands of the public?

Evidence: 3.5

There is a decent amount of evidence that the project can be complete, but there is none that shows that the resulting product will be marketable.

Challenges and risks: 2

There are some inherent challenges seen in the proposal, but there should be a section going into detail about the various challenges that need to be overcome to complete the project. There should also be a small risk section going over the risks of early hardware prototypes failing and how much that could cost over the full development of the product.

Review of Proposal : “Turing machine-inspired puzzle Game”

Proposal author: Luke Balaoro (lbalaor@unm.edu)

Reviewer: Kellen Zelle (kzelle@unm.edu)

Part 1: Proposal restatement

The proposal is to make a Turing machine inspired puzzle game that teaches basic programming and logic targeted toward casual gamers with a focus on those who enjoy puzzle games. The game will have ‘story-mode’ levels, user created levels, and an online scoreboard.

Part 2: Reviewer reaction

It’s a good idea, well thought out for the planning, but not much detail on how the actual mechanics of the game will work. One thing that I noticed is that you want to keep the style strictly neutral; I think that if it is strictly neutral, the game will appear to be bland, the style should have a theme that is eye-catching. Another thing is that there are no ‘theoretical’ plans to distribute the finished game for monetary compensation. Other than that, everything is well planned and detailed.

Part 3: Quantitative Scores

Format: 5

Very straight forward; easy to navigate.

Writing: 4

Style is very monotone and descriptive. There were a couple of errors and a few phrases that were awkward.

Goals and tasks: 4

The goals and tasks are cleanly laid out and planned throughout the rest of the course. Though I think the hour estimates might be a low.

Scope: 4.5

The scope of the project is laid out well within the proposal, and there are no open ends that need to be thought about.

Plausibility: 5

This idea is highly plausible in the sense that it can be completed in the set amount of time.

Novelty: 3.5

It’s an ok idea, but it can be lumped in with other educational/puzzle game software, unless something is developed that makes it stand out from the others.

Stakeholder identification: 4.5

The stakeholders are clearly defined.

Support and impact: 3.5

There was not a plan on how to generate revenue to support the game after release. There were also no plans on how to market and distribute the game to the public.

Evidence: 3.8

There is a lot of evidence that it is possible to develop the game, but there is no evidence as to why people would want to play this game over other games of the same genre.

Challenges and risks: 3

Only one challenge is displayed and explained. I’m sure there are more challenges than just creating intuitive and interesting levels.

Review of Proposal : “Ambient Algebra”

Proposal author: Brandon Lites (blites@unm.edu)

Reviewer: Kellen Zelle (kzelle@unm.edu)

Part 1: Proposal restatement

The proposal for Ambient Algebra is to create an online webapp game platform that hosts fun games that help the targeted populace, college students, learn algebra in a fun and interactive way instead of doing problems out of a text book. The webapp would keep track of students progress in the games, and will provide an online scoreboard to encourage students to learn more to earn the top score. The design of the webapp would not be to replace textbooks, but as a supplement. The motivation behind the project is due to the poor performance of the US in math.

Part 2: Reviewer reaction

I really like the idea, and agree that the youth of the US should not discard math as “too hard” and instead, attempt to learn it to the best of their abilities. The one issue that I have with this proposal is that the main targeted audience are college student’s: I believe that this project should mainly target high school students, but also be accessible to college student’s. This is because I think that the problem of college student’s not knowing algebra should be fixed by them knowing algebra before they get into college. Other than that, its a solid idea, though, I think coming up with games that are actually fun and conduce learning will be a real challenge.

Part 3: Quantitative Scores

Format: 5

The formatting of the proposal was spot on, and cleanly transitioned from one topic to another.

Writing: 3.5

There were a few errors, and the wording in some places was awkward.

Goals and tasks: 3.8

The goals are clear, and the tasks are stated, but there is not an idea on what a game would consist of.

Scope: 4

The scope is clear: this project is targeted towards college students, and will consist of a webapp with games.

Plausibility: 4

The idea is highly plausible, but the main issue in the development will be  coming up with games that produce the intended results of the project.

Novelty: 3

There is a lot of other educational software out in the world; this idea is somewhat different in that it targets an older age group.

Stakeholder identification: 4

Good identification of the stakeholders; from the students, to teachers, to possible educational consultants.

Support and impact: 3.5

The support plan is decently fleshed out, but there is no explanation on how to get the product to be adopted into the educational world.

Evidence: 4

There is strong evidence that something like this should be developed to help increase the math capabilities of students due to the poor performance statistics supplied in the proposal.

Challenges and risks: 4

Challenges and risks are clearly stated in it’s own section and some possible solutions are given to the largest of the challenges.

The following is a link to my project proposal : Multigame Platform for Arcade Style Unity Games.

It is really hard to try to think of all of this stuff by yourself. I'm sure it is a lot more thorough to make project proposals as a group in a work place setting.

It is really quite impressive how extensive and detailed the Volere template is, and is extremely helpful t'boot. It sneakily forces you to have to think about things that you normally wouldn't, just by reading the template and attempting to complete the sections. It had me having to fully realize who the users are, and what their intended relationship with the end product of the project is supposed to be, and it's only the second section of the template. I would be completely lost and in despair without it. Back to the proposal writing I go...