Merge branch 'main' of github.com:CSSE6400/software-architecture

assessment/cloud/main.tex

@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ \section{Submission}
 This assignment has three submissions.
 
 \begin{enumerate}
-  \item March 19$^{th}$ -- API Functionality
+  \item March 25$^{th}$ -- API Functionality
   \item April 12$^{th}$ -- Deployed to Cloud
   \item May 3$^{rd}$ -- Scalable Application
 \end{enumerate}
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ \section{Submission}
 to indicate which commit is to be marked.
 The tags that you \textbf{\underline{must}} use are:
 \begin{itemize}
-  \item \textbf{stage-1} for API Functionality, due on March 19$^{th}$
+  \item \textbf{stage-1} for API Functionality, due on March 25$^{th}$
   \item \textbf{stage-2} for Deployed to Cloud, due on April 12$^{th}$
   \item \textbf{stage-3} for Scalable Application, due on May 3$^{rd}$
 \end{itemize}

assessment/presentation/criteria.tex

@@ -31,10 +31,10 @@ \section*{Presentation Criteria}
 
 \textbf{~ ~ASRs\newline 10\%} &
 ASRs are clearly described, well justified, clearly of high importance, and all will influence architecture decisions. &
-ASRs are clearly described, fairly well jus\-tified, seemingly of high importance, and all are likely to influence architecture decisions. &
+ASRs are clearly described, fairly well jus\-tified, seemingly of high importance, and all are likely to influ\-ence architecture decisions. &
 Most ASRs are well described but a few justifications are a little weak. Most are important and likely to influence architecture decisions. &
-Some ASRs are well described but a few justifications are a little weak. Most are important and likely to influence architecture decisions. &
-Some ASRs are well described but some justifications are weak. Some are important and likely to influence architecture decisions. &
+Some ASRs are well described but a few justifications are weak. Most are important and likely to influence architecture decisions. &
+Some ASRs are fairly well described but some justifications~are weak. Some are important and likely to influence architecture decisions. &
 Most ASRs are poorly described or poorly justified. Few are im\-portant or likely to influence architecture decisions. &
 Most ASRs are poorly described and poorly justified. Very few are important or likely to influence architecture decisions. \\
 \hline
@@ -51,15 +51,15 @@ \section*{Presentation Criteria}
 
 \textbf{Architecture\newline25\%} &
 Description is clear, complete, concise, in\-formative and at an appropriate level of detail,
-resulting in an excellent coherent un\-derstanding of the entire architecture. &
+resulting in an excellent, coherent un\-derstanding of the entire architecture. &
 Description is clear, seemingly complete, informative and at an appropriate level of detail,
 resulting in a good coherent understanding of the entire architecture. &
 Description is mostly clear, informative and at an appropriate level of detail,
 resulting in a good understanding of the architecture structure. &
 Description is mostly clear, informative and at an appropriate level of detail,
 resulting in a good overview of the architecture structure. &
 At times the architecture description is not clear, informative or at an appropriate level of detail,
-resulting in a vague overview of the architecture structure. &
+resulting in a slightly vague overview of the architecture structure. &
 Architecture descrip\-tion is not clear, informative or at an appropriate level of detail,
 resulting in an incomplete understanding of the architecture structure. &
 Architecture descrip\-tion is not clear, informative or at an appropriate level of detail,
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ \section*{Presentation Criteria}
 \textbf{Presentation\newline 10\%} &
 Presentation is well paced and delivered fluently. Information is logically sequenced, with clear objectives making it very easy to follow. &
 Presentation is well paced and delivered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with some clear objectives making it easy to follow. &
-Presentation is mostly well paced and~de\-livered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with signposting clearly guiding audience through presentation. &
+Presentation is mostly well paced and~de\-livered clearly. Information is logically sequenced, with signposting guiding audience through presentation. &
 Presentation pace is~a little inconsistent or delivery is occasionally unclear. Information is logically sequenced allowing audience to follow presentation fairly well. &
 Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is sometimes unclear. Information is not always logically sequenced, distracting audience from presentation flow. &
 Presentation pace is inconsistent or delivery is unclear. Information is not logically sequenced, and planned progression was not clear to audience. &