CST300 Module 8 (Final)

Part 1: Review Other Teams' final video projects

Team: MobiusRetrieval

Source – General Population: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqBB-0Y3yYk

Source – Professional Population: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geQ1qYcSneI

1. is the topic well covered?

Each video defines key terms, and covers the critical parts of AI. The videos do a good job tailoring their message and terminology to the specific audience.

2. is the presentation clear?

The presentations are clear. Visual aids, pictures, and videos are used to help convey concepts, and do a good job keeping the presentation focused.

3. how is the quality of the research?

While the presentations do not list their sources, they include a lot of interesting and specific information, which shows that a significant amount of research went into creating the videos.

4. how is the quality of the video production?

The presentations mainly step through slideshows, alternating between speakers. The videos are well edited and do not contain any errors.

5. is the video engaging and interesting?

The videos are extremely engaging. AI is an interesting technology, and the presentation does a good job of providing many real-world examples of what it is discussing.

6. is the team work evident?

Yes, several different team members take turns narrating slides.

7. is the video appropriate to the audience (either general public or technology professionals)

As previously mentioned, the videos tailor themselves to the intended audience. The video targeted towards the general population takes a more simplistic approach to the concept, while the professional video takes a deeper dive into the nuances.

 

Team: Pocket-Sized Solutions

Source – General Population: https://youtu.be/FyOcN1NBX3M

Source – Professional Population: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGJE5dhVjh4

1. is the topic well covered?

Yes, the videos cover many of the aspects of mobile advertising, such as their often fraudulent, and predatory nature.

2. is the presentation clear?

The presentations are clear. While, in my opinion, the “interrupting ads” joke sometimes carries on for too long and ultimately distracts from what the presentation is attempting to convey, overall the videos are well organized and presented.

3. how is the quality of the research?

The videos include which references were used for a particular segment. These references are high quality, and show that a significant amount of research was done to compile the presentations.

4. how is the quality of the video production?

The video production is very high. Speakers take turns narrating over presentations that are highly dynamic, which include video elements, and various parodies of advertisements interrupting the experience.

5. is the video engaging and interesting?

The videos are highly engaging. The topic of mobile advertisements is relevant to practically everyone in the technology space, and the team created videos that keep the viewer interested via dynamic elements.

6. is the team work evident?

Yes. Multiple different speakers narrate over the presentation.

7. is the video appropriate to the audience (either general public or technology professionals)

At first the animation caught me off guard. I think this works well for the general public presentation, though the professional presentation also included a small animated section, which I am not sure is suitable for the intended audience.

Team: Byte Builders

Source – General Population:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tznTlGlg1Cg

Source – Professional Population: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YacxzdC0T-4

1. is the topic well covered?

The topic is well covered. Certain key issues like space pollution, download speeds, and region coverage were discussed.

2. is the presentation clear?

Some of the speakers talk a bit fast, which personally made it difficult for me to parse some of what was being conveyed.

3. how is the quality of the research?

There is a lot of good information in the presentations. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the group performed a small study on Reddit, though I am not sure the sample size is large enough to make widespread observations. The presentations did not include references, so it is not possible to directly validate the quality of their sources.

4. how is the quality of the video production?

I would have liked to see some more production on the general population video, as that presentation mainly included shots of the narrators. The professional presentation was much more dynamic, stepping through slides, and video clips.

5. is the video engaging and interesting?

The videos cover an interesting topic. I think the general population video could have had more dynamic elements to keep the viewer engaged, as the professional video did.

6. is the team work evident?

Yes, multiple speakers take turns narrating, and presenting the different slides.

7. is the video appropriate to the audience (either general public or technology professionals)

The general population video might have been too information heavy for the public. I think the professional presentation catered well to the intended audience, mixing presentation with information.

Part 2: Keep Up With Your Learning Journal

Bitwise Final Video Project:

General Population: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4vS7_YUiAAL

Professional Population: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAteihHNnsg

CST 300 emphasized collaboration. The main lesson I will take away from this class is that the software engineering industry is built on top of collaborative projects, and that being able to work in that sort of environment is extremely important. Our team’s collaborative ability faltered a bit throughout the course. I think the most important aspects to improve on is the communication between team members, and the ability to set deadlines, and deliver by those times.

CST300 Module 7

Part 1

Our team has collaborated well so far regarding the Final Research Video. Last week in our team meeting, which was facilitated through Discord, we determined the timetable to have the various parts of the project done. First on the agenda was a Google Doc where we compiled research, second was a Google Slide where we made the presentation, and third was a deadline where all team members needed to have their sections recorded. We are currently working on recording the video. The process has been smooth so far, I see no need to change future groupwork based on this project.

Part 2

Ted.com video reflections:

Source: https://www.ted.com/talks/aicha_evans_your_self_driving_robotaxi_is_almost_here

• An alternative view of the self-driving car revolution is not one where everyone has an individual car, like we do today, but one where a shared pool of vehicles transport people on-demand.
• Computer vision allows self-driving cars to see and parse the world around it, allowing them to drive and avoid obstacles. However, this computer vision is still far below a human’s capacity to absorb and understand the environment.
• Radar and Lidar are used to supplement traditional cameras to provide additional information to the computer.
• The presentation described a self-driving car that can continuously see 360 degrees around itself, and for over 150 meters.
• There will always be edge-case scenarios that cannot be handled by a self-driving system. Simulations can be used to help train self-driving systems to respond to these edge cases.

Source: https://www.ted.com/talks/john_c_mather_how_the_james_webb_space_telescope_will_unfold_the_universe

• The James Web Space Telescope is estimated to have a 20-year operational lifespan.
• To fit inside the rocket, James Web had to be intricately folded. The telescope then had to carefully unfold over two weeks when it reached its destination at L2, which is around two million miles from Earth.
• The telescope can only operate at cool temperatures. An “umbrella” is used to shield the telescope from the Sun.
• Theoretically, the telescope is so sensitive that it could detect a bumblebee on the Moon from the Earth’s surface.

Presentation resources notes:

• Do not overload your PowerPoint presentation slides with words.
• Fonts should have an average point size. Text should not move.
• Choose font type wisely. Do not pick something too outlandish.
• Use normal capitalization rules. Avoid unnecessary bullet points.
• Use moderate amounts of animation.
• Do not assume the viewer will understand the acronyms included in the presentation.
• Do not include meaningless graphs in the presentation.
• Maps should have the relevant locations marked.
• Lists should be, at maximum, five or six items long.
• Handouts should be distributed before the presentation starts.
• Physical props should be able to be seen by all audience members, and the presentation should not make use of too many physical props.