Talk:User-Centered Design
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Quality of the summary: | Quality of the summary: | ||
| − | |||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | + | In general the summary is good and clearly understandable. There are some spelling mistakes e.g. it is 'Life" instead of "live". Furthermore if you use the abbreviation UCD for User-centered Design, it is necessary to introduce it in parenthesis the first time. Furthermore, you mention that UCD consists out of 5 steps but you don't name them at all. At least the name of the steps should be mentioned at this point. | |
===Question 2=== | ===Question 2=== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 35: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| + | So far, the article is quite logic but as there is just the abstract this question can't be answered. | ||
| Line 49: | Line 50: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| + | The text is clearly understandable and easy to read. However, there are some spelling mistakes like mentioned above (life instead of live). In addition there are some really long sentence which are followed by really short sentence. Try to keep it uniform and that the writing style is consistent throughout the whole text. | ||
===Question 4=== | ===Question 4=== | ||
| Line 63: | Line 66: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| + | So far the text does not consist any figures and tables. | ||
===Question 5=== | ===Question 5=== | ||
| Line 75: | Line 79: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| + | The relevance of the article is quite clear explained in the abstract and its clearly highlighted why it is important for project manager to consider this method. | ||
===Question 6=== | ===Question 6=== | ||
| Line 88: | Line 93: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | As since now just the abstract is uploaded it is not possible to answer the questions. | |
===Question 7=== | ===Question 7=== | ||
| Line 103: | Line 108: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is no annotated bibliography yet. Furthermore, the recommended references of the course are not implemented yet. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer Name: Lars From-Hansen== | ||
| + | |||
| + | User-Centered Design | ||
| + | Quality of the summary: | ||
| + | Very good. | ||
| + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | I have no suggestions for improvement. | ||
| + | Answer 1 | ||
| + | Answer here | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question 2 · TEXT | ||
| + | Structure and logic of the article: | ||
| + | Seems good. | ||
| + | Is the argument clear? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Answer 2 | ||
| + | Answer here | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question 3 · TEXT | ||
| + | Grammar and style: | ||
| + | Good | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
Latest revision as of 11:09, 21 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; missing references
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to reference the article and try connect with the content of course.
Try to see if you can connect with the PM ISO 21500.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer Name: Lorenz Sieferle
[edit] Question 1
Quality of the summary:
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
In general the summary is good and clearly understandable. There are some spelling mistakes e.g. it is 'Life" instead of "live". Furthermore if you use the abbreviation UCD for User-centered Design, it is necessary to introduce it in parenthesis the first time. Furthermore, you mention that UCD consists out of 5 steps but you don't name them at all. At least the name of the steps should be mentioned at this point.
[edit] Question 2
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
Is there a logical flow to the article?
Does one part build upon the other?
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
So far, the article is quite logic but as there is just the abstract this question can't be answered.
[edit] Question 3
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
The text is clearly understandable and easy to read. However, there are some spelling mistakes like mentioned above (life instead of live). In addition there are some really long sentence which are followed by really short sentence. Try to keep it uniform and that the writing style is consistent throughout the whole text.
[edit] Question 4
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear?
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
So far the text does not consist any figures and tables.
[edit] Question 5
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
The relevance of the article is quite clear explained in the abstract and its clearly highlighted why it is important for project manager to consider this method.
[edit] Question 6
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
As since now just the abstract is uploaded it is not possible to answer the questions.
[edit] Question 7
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
There is no annotated bibliography yet. Furthermore, the recommended references of the course are not implemented yet.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer Name: Lars From-Hansen
User-Centered Design Quality of the summary: Very good. Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes What would you suggest to improve? I have no suggestions for improvement. Answer 1 Answer here
Question 2 · TEXT Structure and logic of the article: Seems good. Is the argument clear?
Is there a logical flow to the article?
Does one part build upon the other?
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 2 Answer here
Question 3 · TEXT Grammar and style: Good
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
