Changes for page Rixt Reflection

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,17 +1,22 @@
1	1	== [Draft] ==
2	2
3		-started first week with not that great idea of what the course was, had first lecture to sort of explain it
	3	+The first week I went into the course, without a good idea of what the content would look like. The first lecture explained the general idea pretty well; A combination of human-centered design and technical aspects, among other things.
	4	+After the first week I got the idea we were already a little behind, so I worked on the Quick Start to round out the idea of a personal encyclopedia. I think in this part of the project it would have benefitted our project group to communicate a little more to straighten out the details of our idea.
	5	+Afterwards we divided the several parts of the Foundation chapter, of which I took on two parts of the Human Factors. This part had my preference over all other parts of the project, as it allowed me to write about the concept of Socio-Cognitive engineering as well as do some research into what theories can be used to reason about technology's influence on people.
4	4
5		-Got the feeling we were a little behind, mostly focussed on quick start. we had a rough idea (personal encyclopedia) but were definitely missing some details
	7	+During the Specification
6	6
7		-then started on foundation a little and worked on human factors, also required me to really think about socio cognitive engineering and the influence of engineering on humans
8	8
9	9	Went on to use cases, were still a little iffy on the details. Figured that we should have figured it out at the quickstart, but we would have needed some more time for that. And instead of figuring out the entire functions/claims/effects structure, we should have laid out the details of our idea first.
10	10
11		-Had some issues with filling in effects too, thinking in 'smaller' and more specific effects was a little difficult. We also started noticing there was a lot of repetition, which seems easy but tends to work counterproductive because if you don't have everything to exact detail, then repeating stuff will create divergence in the idea
	12	+Had some issues with filling in effects too, thinking in 'smaller' and more specific effects was a little difficult. I think also in specific software projects it is simple to make requirements, but for this kind of mixed project it is not all relevant what every little software detail does.
12	12
	14	+We also started noticing there was a lot of repetition, which seems easy but tends to work counterproductive because if you don't have everything to exact detail, then repeating stuff will create divergence in the idea.
	15	+
13	13	We needed a little more clear discussing on the testing ideas in hindsight, but this is what happens in a little too large group.
14	14
15	15	It was also at this point that I started noticing that the testing our idea with 'relevant' results would be hard, considering the time and material limits. Not only did we not get NAO working immediately, and was it not as detailed in its movements as we wanted, and there really was not enough time to get a significant (>30) amount of testers and control group. So it felt a little redundant to do a test; It would not get relevant results and 'learning' to test seemed a little late for our Master's degree. I would have preferred to dive deeper into the human factors part and the theory and maybe a little more into different types of emotional questionnaires?
16	16
	20	+In the end I think I could have learned more if this course was more theory and cognitive focussed, rather than experimental/test focussed. I think a positive thing was that I really had to think about functional requirements, although maybe the format the we are used to in computer science (moscow method for example) is more fruitful.
	21	+
17	17