shorts2/tasks.tex

   1 \documentclass{article}
   2
   3 \usepackage[a4paper]{geometry}
   4 \usepackage{hyperref}
   5
   6 \hypersetup{%
   7         pdfauthor={Mart Lubbers},
   8         pdfsubject={Short review},
   9         pdfcreator={Mart Lubbers},
  10         pdfproducer={Mart Lubbers},
  11         hidelinks
  12 }
  13
  14 \author{Mart Lubbers (s4109503)}
  15 \title{Task Oriented Programming with Purely Compositional Interactive Scalable
  16 Vector Graphics}
  17 \date{2016{--}06{-}08}
  18
  19 \begin{document}
  20 \maketitle
  21 \subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
  22 %Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
  23 The paper describes a step by step implementation of the game \emph{Ligretto}
  24 in the \emph{iTasks} system. In contrast to other \emph{iTasks} application
  25 which use the automatically generated \emph{GUI}'s, \emph{Ligretto} uses
  26 scalable compositional and interactive graphics.
  27
  28 %Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
  29 To illustrate the case study they provide almost complete implementation of the
  30 game. Step by step the mechanics are explained. Starting with an introduction
  31 to the basic scalable graphics library they move on to the rendering of a
  32 static \emph{Ligretto} screen. In the third section they show the
  33 implementation of the interaction.
  34
  35 \subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
  36 %Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
  37 The strength of the paper is the elaboration. The writing is very verbose and
  38 it would almost be possible to recreate the entire application from the paper.
  39 There is a lot of elaboration
  40
  41 %Weaknesses
  42 A weakness is the big heaps of implementation and the size of the images. The
  43 introducton on iTasks is a tad short and the introduction to SVG is a bit too
  44 long.
  45
  46 \subsubsection*{Evaluation}
  47 %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
  48 %would you recommend acceptance?)
  49 I would advise to accept the paper on the condition that the implementation is
  50 shortened and especially shorten section 4. More elaboration on iTasks would be
  51 more benificial since it is lesser known.
  52
  53 %Comments on quality of writing
  54 The text is very readable and really guides the reader through the process of
  55 development. There is a lot of implementation that can help the reader to
  56 understand the problem, however the sheer lines of code presented is very big.
  57 There are also a big number of images.
  58
  59 \subsubsection*{Discussion}
  60 %Queries for discussion
  61 \begin{itemize}
  62         \item The number of implementations decrease drastically.
  63         \item The current application is way to slow to function properly as the
  64                 author mentions, it should be improved before publishing it.
  65 \end{itemize}
  66
  67 \end{document}