1. All teams showed original thought and a good amount of effort in considering the different structural challenges of their building types. Some of your building types and locations were easier to design for than others.
2. There were more spelling and grammar mistakes made in this assignment than in A3.
3. On average, groups still did not provide reference information for images and data found in research etc.
4. Most teams did not include important numeric parameters or charts to help strengthen their explanations for the relevant structural systems section.
5. When images, tables and charts were presented, they were usually not expanded upon or explained in terms of why it was relevant to the specific building type or location.
6. Some system design criteria were too vague. For example, environmental factors include a variety of things like earthquake zone, temperature differences, wind loads, snow loads, site conditions, etc.
7. A lot of teams made claims that needed to be backed up by calculations, references or case studies.
8. Overall the teams did a good job of recording their criteria matrix and thought process for the design.
9. However, the prioritization of criteria before they were put into the matrix was often unclear or lacking. Also lacking was an acknowledgment of which stakeholders found which criteria to be important.
10. Some students reviewed past submissions on the class database and it shows. The teams who did this produced well rounded design matrices that involved all four major aspects of the design selection.
11. Most teams attempted the extra credit and did well on it. Points were deducted if a flowchart was not included.
12. Review the site before you submit! Do all of the pages have the same type of font, color, and size? Does the website look as though it is one project or a combination of items thrown together at the last minute?
No comments:
Post a Comment