Final Review | The Ideal Gam(e)

[utterances-bot]

Final Review | The Ideal Gam(e)

Team:

https://davidl0914.github.io/TheIdealGam/2023/12/11/Final_review.html

[hanlunli]

Individual Review Hanlun grading Kayden

• Individual should show that they were key contributor and example to team. This includes their participation in ideas, plans, creating individual issues, providing code commits to project, crossover grading participation, being on task and positive example in the classroom.

Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)

• Video in CPT caption style , includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute
• Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives
• Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions
• Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks

Per check.
0.55 not attempted/no check
0.7 attempted, incoomplete, but some runtime
0.8 mastery and runtime
0.9 above and beyond.

Freeform comment.
Provide positivies and growth summary.
Justify or comment on final score.
Be sure to provide extra details on anything below 0.7 average or above 0.8.

[hanlunli]

0.9: Was very on task, code commits were meaningful to the project.
0.9: Video demonstrated how the feature works, and explained how to use it. Video's captions are very well paced, and well made.
0.9: Has an issue that explains initial plan, and details the goals of the feature. Issue has flowchart detailing how the code should work. Could detail how you decide what questions are harder than others.
0.85: Issue details key parts of code that appear in the key commit. Has multiple commits that show the development process of his program.
0.85: Had consistent commits throughout the 3 weeks, code significantly contributed to overall project

Overall: 0.88/0.9 (97.8%)

• Idea for project is cool
• I like how the feature allows the user to learn binary to decimal conversion in a fun way
• A leaderboard to show the people with the highest scores would be nice
• maybe add a timed mode, so users have a time constraint
• try making font color more contrasting, so the text is easier to read

[M8tth3]

Individual Review "Matthew Wakayama" grading "David"

[0.9] Individual should show that they were key contributor and example to team. This includes their participation in ideas, plans, creating individual issues, providing code commits to project, crossover grading participation, being on task and positive example in the classroom.
Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)

[ 0.9 ] Video in CPT caption style , includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute
Video is clear, has captions and is good overview of project
[ 0.75] Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives
Only has initial plan, no issues to show progress
[0.9] Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions
Highlights key commits
[0.9] Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks
Has constant participation
Per check.
0.87
Overall

Consistent commits and development of the binary project
A super cool racing game and a fun way to get users to interact with binary.
In the future try to post more issues to track progress throughout the development of the project
It would be cool if the binary values the user has to enter get progressively larger as they approach the end of the race
Maybe add a mode where you are given a binary value and you have to convert it to decimal

[ad1tyad3sa1]

Individual Review Aditya grading Matthew

Individual should show that they were key contributor and example to team. This includes their participation in ideas, plans, creating individual issues, providing code commits to project, crossover grading participation, being on task and positive example in the classroom.

Was an influential member of his team, contributed well in plans, design, and individual feature. 0.9

Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)

Video in CPT caption style , includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute
Well organized, program explained everything well and included a complete demo going over the top to explain all the features. 0.9

Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives
Had a plan and uploaded changes into previous work, looked great and implemented retrospective. 0.9

Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions
Had multiple commits and proof of work. 0.8

Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks
There is evidence of all commits and looks to have contributed greatly. 0.8

Final Score: 0.86

Per check.
0.55 not attempted/no check
0.7 attempted, incoomplete, but some runtime
0.8 mastery and runtime
0.9 above and beyond.

Freeform comment.
Provide positivies and growth summary.
Justify or comment on final score.
Be sure to provide extra details on anything below 0.7 average or above 0.8.

[trevorhuang1]

Individual Review Trevor H grading Andrew K
(edited for better feedback but the grades were not changed)

• Individual should show that they were key contributor and example to team. This includes their participation in ideas, plans, creating individual issues, providing code commits to project, crossover grading participation, being on task and positive example in the classroom. (0.8)
  Clear contributions to plans and key commits are shown. On task during grading and overall a positive example

Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)

• Video in CPT caption style , includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute (0.7)
  The video has readable, understandable captions which explain the project. However, the web demo itself was really hard to understand and a bit unreasonable to play without a system to teach me about binary and ascii interpretations

• Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives (0.9)
  The plans are clear and the ideation goes above and beyond -- it shows excellent planning skills.

• Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions (0.8)
  Key commits are highlighted in issues.

• Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks (0.8)
  Key commits for three weeks with some inconsistencies. One big commit with several smaller ones.

Per check.
0.55 not attempted/no check
0.7 attempted, incoomplete, but some runtime
0.8 mastery and runtime
0.9 above and beyond.

My comment:
Glows:
The video can effectively showcase the project with the use of captions and the plans are thorough. The planning is excellent and shows foresight

Grows:
The game is really hard to play because there isn't an ASCII table given
Teach me about binary and ascii before I have to jump straight into the quiz

I think this project has potential to be great, with excellent planning and decent participation with the rest of the group. The main problem I had was the difficulty playing the game, so what if you added an easy mode and hard mode?

-Overall: 0.8 + 0.7 + 0.9+ 0.8 + 0.8 --> 0.8/0.9

[trevorhuang1]

Team Review Trevor H grading Matthew W

• The team should have a Web Pages that teach: Binary, Data, Data Structures, Data Abstraction.
  There are a myriad of fun games which teach about binary and the different types of data abstraction (binary to decimal or ascii) (0.9).

Team Review ticket containing key Team and individual contributions

• Growth/Accomplishments in work is according to historical Team Plan, or they show revisions to plan according to work
  Excellent planning for all weeks of the project with multiple diagrams for each feature. The plans match the features with fidelity (0.9).

• Short falls/Improvement that could be made in Work or Team Plan, team highlights next steps or improvements that could be made
  **Team said that they improved the project based on Mr. Mortensens feedback by adding instructions, but I don't see this feedback written down anywhere (0.7). **

• Showing key accomplishments according to requirement in Frontend such as Binary Math, ASCII, Unicode, Color Codes, Logic Gates, etc.
  I see a lot of ways to represent binary but I wish I saw a bit more diversity between features such as incorporating color codes, logic gates, or other ways to represent binary (0.75)

• Showing key user interaction and learning(s). For instance how you visualized Algorithms, Data, Data Structures. Or, how you provided response and Feedback to user on their success in learning.
  Algorithmns, data, and data structures are all displayed clearly which helped me visualize what was going on in the code. It was helpful (0.8)

Overall score: 0.9 + 0.9 + 0.7 + 0.75 + 0.8 = 0.81/0.9
Glows:

• Very good planning and the diagrams helped me understand the projects
• Many fun games that incorporate binary in games which kept me engaged the whole time

Grows:

• I wish I saw more representations of binary besides just binary and ascii as numbers
• Some of the games are really hard to play. I wish that there were more instructions and I was taught more about binary instead of jumping straight in.

Overall I gave you guys 0.81/0.9 because of the very fun features and good flowcharts/diagrams but the categories holding you guys back were just that I couldn't find anywhere where shortfalls/room for improvement were ever mentioned and how I really only saw binary represented in as ascii, numbers, and words. This is an amazing project with even more room to grow.
Per check.
0.55 not attempted/no check
0.7 attempted, incoomplete, but some runtime
0.8 mastery and runtime
0.9 above and beyond.

Freeform comment.
Provide positivies and growth summary.
Justify or comment on final score.
Be sure to provide extra details on anything below 0.7 average or above 0.8.

[ad1tyad3sa1]

Improved Grading

Individual Review Aditya grading Matthew

Individual should show that they were key contributor and example to team. This includes their participation in ideas, plans, creating individual issues, providing code commits to project, crossover grading participation, being on task and positive example in the classroom.

Was an influential member of his team, contributed well in plans, design, and individual feature. Could have created more individual reviews segmenting improvements in code, however their was sufficient amount of documentation done by him for his group's project. 0.9

Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)

Video in CPT caption style , includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute
Well organized, program explained everything well and included a complete demo going over the top to explain all the features. Minimal mouse scrolling, added indicators to and easy to understand captions making it clear what he was talking about and referencing. 0.9

Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives
Had a plan and uploaded changes into previous work, looked great and implemented retrospective. Had instructions for program and a link to detailed retrospective highlighting different parts of code. 0.9

Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions
Had multiple commits and proof of work. Analyzes code in retrospective with possible improvements. Could have organized it a little better in terms of the different aspects he wanted improved. 0.8

Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks
There is evidence of all commits and looks to have contributed greatly. He had commits spread out, commented code segments. Work is original and up to date. Possibly could have organized code better to make it easier to understand for viewers. 0.8

Final Score: 0.86

Per check.
0.55 not attempted/no check
0.7 attempted, incoomplete, but some runtime
0.8 mastery and runtime
0.9 above and beyond.

Freeform comment.
Provide positivies and growth summary.
Justify or comment on final score.
Be sure to provide extra details on anything below 0.7 average or above 0.8.