\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[a4paper]{geometry}
\usepackage{hyperref}

\hypersetup{%
	pdfauthor={Mart Lubbers},
	pdfsubject={Short review},
	pdfcreator={Mart Lubbers},
	pdfproducer={Mart Lubbers},
	hidelinks
}

\author{Mart Lubbers (s4109503)}
\title{Task Oriented Programming with Purely Compositional Interactive Scalable
Vector Graphics}
\date{2016{--}06{-}08}

\begin{document}
\maketitle
\subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
%Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
The paper describes a step by step implementation of the game \emph{Ligretto}
in the \emph{iTasks} system. In contrast to other \emph{iTasks} application
which use the automatically generated \emph{GUI}'s, \emph{Ligretto} uses
scalable compositional and interactive graphics.

%Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
To illustrate the case study they provide almost complete implementation of the
game. Step by step the mechanics are explained. Starting with an introduction
to the basic scalable graphics library they move on to the rendering of a
static \emph{Ligretto} screen. In the third section they show the
implementation of the interaction.

\subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
%Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
The strength of the paper is the elaboration. The writing is very verbose and
it would almost be possible to recreate the entire application from the paper.
There is a lot of elaboration

%Weaknesses
A weakness is the big heaps of implementation and the size of the images. The
introducton on iTasks is a tad short and the introduction to SVG is a bit too
long.

\subsubsection*{Evaluation}
%Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
%would you recommend acceptance?)
I would advise to accept the paper on the condition that the implementation is
shortened and especially shorten section 4. More elaboration on iTasks would be
more benificial since it is lesser known.

%Comments on quality of writing
The text is very readable and really guides the reader through the process of
development. There is a lot of implementation that can help the reader to
understand the problem, however the sheer lines of code presented is very big.
There are also a big number of images.

\subsubsection*{Discussion}
%Queries for discussion
\begin{itemize}
	\item The number of implementations decrease drastically.
	\item The current application is way to slow to function properly as the
		author mentions, it should be improved before publishing it.
\end{itemize}

\end{document}
