tasks

diff --git a/shorts2/tasks.tex b/shorts2/tasks.tex
index b6c46fc..33d78b8 100644 (file)
--- 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}