Presentation feedback

 IP

Interactive Architecture:

Oral presentation:

Many examples of case studies were talked about. It was a good way to bring the actual sample to demonstrate the topic. It drew people into the presentation.

Written presentation:

The effort of the research towards IP was shown clearly.

The sub topics were explained by comparing two issues, which made the presentation easy to follow. And it brought the discussion to the audience.

Power point slides were simple and clear for people to see.

Distinctiveness:

Although, there was lack of relationship between their project and the topic understanding of the IP was shown clearly in the presentation. It  followed the point of the IP so that I could understand what the topic is about. Also I could see that the team was working closely.

The still images: 

All of the images were placed appropriately. The white background made the images clear and crisp.

Conceptual context:

I thought that the whole presentation was a little bit too long. Some of the examples could have been excluded so that the presentation does not become a blur.

GeriAmbience

Oral presentation:

The topic was presented as a high standard. It was showing that everyone was well prepared for the presentation.

 Each person talked about different sub topics, which made the whole presentation more understandable.

It was showing that some people have more understanding of their project.

Written presentation:

Explanation of the presentation was followed sequentially.

The subject was divided into steps.

Distinctiveness:

The relation between the IP issue and their own project was well explained.

The effort of the research towards their own project was explained clearly which showed each person’s engagement within the project.

Referencing:

The referencing was shown appropriately. 

The conceptual context:

There was a good exploration of how the IP works about the websites and appls. I understand that there is a threat of anyone taking work when the information was made open to the public; up-loadable, not resisted etc. But they need to be open to the public at some level  to promote the product. Also as the software becomes more useful and accomplished more people would want to use it, therefore the product needs to have a higher protection system. It seems very complicated when it comes to the protecting applications and software.

It was a good effort to contact Crytek asking for the quote. 

The still images:

The slides looked slightly too dry. But the layout looked well done.