Michela Negrini

Re: Evaluation - Group -- (2/2) effort, (4/5) (product), (1,5/3 (documentation)

I’ve noticed a great effort and participation throughout these months of work and project development; as a whole, the group deserves 2/2.

Some people, though, seemed to me more interested, active and participating.

As far as the product concerns, I believe it has been well structured and the information has been well organised and efficiently presented to the users. However, the visual importance of such a product has not been taken into deep account. If I evaluate the product from a market/business oriented point of view, as a client I would require the group to work more on the presentation and the appealing of their dossier.

The idea to combine university and "real" world as far as this project concerns involves the need, I believe, to focus on the whole range of aspects it include. I’ve noticed sometimes some comments have been raised a negative reaction from some members of the group: the purpose was, on my side, to open up to a different environment than the computer science, not a critique to the work done. I hope this message together with the need to merge and blend different knowledge and to confront different points of views and contribution has passed through the group as a step into a non academic but professional/business oriented world.

Regarding documentation, if that concerns the information about the artist, the material used have been organically divided and organised. I have remarked, though, several mistakes during the development of the projects (i.e. wrong title associated with the wrong artwork, not notice that the interviews texts were missing, etc...) which denote a not deep documentation.

All this considered, the whole project have been very well developed by all the members of the group.

On my behalf, the experience of working with a class has been very interesting. It has been a great group of people to work with, despite some clashes due to the different approaches we had. As I said, sometimes a different opinion has been perceived as negative instead of a starting point for a discussion aiming to improve the work.

• November 2^nd 2004 – V.U. – Presentation
• November 17^th 2004 – Montevideo – Project preservation/ Video works clips asked
• November 22^nd 2004 – V.U. – meeting with the whole class
• December 6^th 2004 – Group meeting - Chris van Riel, Tim Verweij, Olaf van Zon
• January 7th 2005 – V.U. – Application demonstration
• January 11^th 2005 - meeting with Jina Menke for visual improvements
• January 18^th 2005 - Montevideo – Digital Dossier Presentation
• January 26^th 2005 - V.U. – last meeting to check the whole work before the definitive stage