From 0a8733498050e832ce28cae2970f5bcd61d0a3dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mart Lubbers Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:22:38 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] tasks --- shorts2/tasks.tex | 18 +++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/shorts2/tasks.tex b/shorts2/tasks.tex index b6c46fc..33d78b8 100644 --- a/shorts2/tasks.tex +++ b/shorts2/tasks.tex @@ -34,22 +34,34 @@ 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 +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 + \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} -- 2.20.1