####Technical Review Reflection and Synthesis #####Judy, March, Mathew ####Feedback and decisions with respect to our key questions In our technical review we focused on three technical questions and one question about user interface. Our first question was about the general structure of our code. We wanted feedback on our classes and how they connected with each other. While this question was not optimally framed, we received helpful feedback about our Model class. Currently model class contains an inputted line, its derivative and its integral. The feedback was to consider assigning the line, derivative and integral to a Line class - which would be contained by the Model class. Since there are different ways this can go, some questions of how this will work have been raised. We are now discussing their details and will be implementing this very soon.
Our second question was specific to openCV. We wanted feedback on how to effectively use openCV to track the coordinates of a line as it was traced. Currently we are tracking a color range, but this has many flaws. We two helpful pieces of advice. The first was to use a flashlight or laser of different and track light intensity to minimize interference from other objects in the frame. The second was a specific link about tracking objects using contours instead of color ranges. Moving forward we will learn from this link and implement contour tracking, possibly switching to tracking intensity if necessary.
Our third question was on a functionality which we want to incorporate. We want the user to be able to adjust the input line after it has been drawn by clicking and dragging on a point. While this question was also less than optimally introduced, we received good feedback about the user interaction element. Instead of dragging the line on given points it is more user friendly to be able to drag the line from any segment. Therefore, we will be implementing the functionality in this way.
Our final question was about the overall user experience of our program. We received much helpful feedback from our peers about the interaction and functionality. Some key feedback was: It would be very helpful to see the cursor as an input line is drawn. It would be good to see plots on a grid. It would be useful to see equations in some cases. Toggling on and off elements that add “symbolic meaning” would be great. We plan to take this feedback into consideration as we refine our user interface. In addition, we will keep looking for feedback in this area. While discussing this element during the review, one question arose that we had not previously thought of. The question was about who our target audience is. While we know the general answer is “people learning calculus” we hope to be able to answer this question more concretely.
####Review process reflection
Overall we feel the review went pretty well. There were definitely areas that we could have improved, but we did get good feedback on our questions. Our question about code structure did not have enough context to be easily understood and answered. And our functionality question was not well framed. It was a rather technical question and needed to be explicitly framed.
In regards to agenda, it was something we loosely followed. This was not caused by new discoveries, but through conversation flow. We feel this was appropriate. We were able to transition more smoothly, stay on some topics for more time and on others for less. For the next technical review we need to improve three things. First, we need think more carefully about what questions can be best answered by our peers. Second, we need to give more appropriate context for our questions. And third, we need to frame our questions explicitly. By doing these three things we feel we will have an improved technical review experience going forward.