If you  have any questions about your project scores, please talk to
Venkat in person. Email questions regarding grades (individual or
project) will be politely deleted.

Project Total 30 points total
SST               27
GooHoo            23 
Sudoku            22 
Academic Calc     27    


Final Report total 8 points

SST 7
Report some what long. Has some details, but could have been more
focused on points expected.

GooHoo 7
Report has explained some issues. Reasoning given for some of the key 
principles not being used are not convincing, however. Screen shots
presented not relevant - only made the report appear longer.

Sudoku 8
Report is lengthy, but has adequate details. Could be improved.
For instance, was everying waterfall? What are some of the variations, 
etc.

Academic Calc 8
Good iteration. Enough details presented about strengths and weakness.
Good work.

Demo 40 points total

SST (38)
Good work. Good use of Continous Integration and Source control repository.
Not enough into Unit testing. Project feature complete, stable, and 
enough project complexity. Pretty good demo as well.
Presentation 10
Project and demo 10
Q & A 10
Process, Tools, Techniques 8

GooHoo (28)
No tools or process. Working program. Some testing though quite manual
it appers. The simplicity in project feature could have been a gain
to focus more on learing tools and techniques. 
Presentation 9
Project and demo 9
Q & A 8
Process, Tools, Techniques 2

Sudoku (24)
Working program though team had little clue of what a web application is
and what is not. Ignorance is OK, but indifference displayed is not
acceptable. Hardcoding client side path in an application, claiming it is
a web application, and saying it is not a big deal is unacceptable.
Wonder what everyone in the team really worked on, especially those guy
who said their main task was to review the code.
No process, name space unit testing, no source control.
Presentation 9
Project and demo 7
Q & A 7
Process, Tools, Techniques 1

Academic Calc (38)
One of the best projects. The UI is really impressive. Good job.
Nice to see the use of tools, source control, great job with unit testing,
the parser part. Feature rich, not enough into continuous intregration.
Presentation 10
Project and demo 10
Q & A 10
Process, Tools, Techniques 8

Development Report (8 points total)

SST (7)
Fairly well written report
Enough details on arch and classes
Layering helps maintainability, but how does that make your app "safe" ?
Development activity is a bit sketchy
Postponing integration is not good
Expand more on tools discussions in final report.

GooHoo (6)
Good overview of project, but lacks details in areas
Detail further about tools, techniques, and approach in the final report.

Academic Calc (6)
Moving all code into .h is not good. Problem may have been solved by
	naming the .cc file as .cpp
Good details about problemjs faced and solved
Not satisfied with GUI restricting input to help parser with
	error handling.
Expand further on development approach and activities.

Sudoku (5)
Nice to see simplification of design
Not much in the report in terms of discussions on approach,
	team work, tools, and techniques.


Inital Report
10 points each for items I, II, III. Total out of 30 points.
I. Description of functionality
II. Discussions/presentation of interfaces
III. Report overall

SST (24)
I. (10)
I like your approach to base your discussions on actors and their
interactions - taking a use case like approach.
II. (5)
Lacks adquate information on this.
III. (9)
Fairly adequate details where presented. Later part was presented better
than earlier part of the document.

GooHoo (22)
I. (8)
I am not really sure what all this application is going to do. I
see organizer, calculator, but not really sure. A clear explanation of
what to expect is lacking.
II. (8)
Expected to see some sample, but only a descriptions (though I like some
of the reasoning given).
III. (6)
Needs much improvement. Does not really tell me what this is about.

Academic Calc (26)
I. (9)
Enough details about what the application does in finer grain presented.
Lacks a few details about storage may be?
II. (8)
While details are presented, some information is only sketchy. Would have been
nice to see a sample.
III. (9)
Adequate, but may have been organized a bit more.

Sudoku (20)
I. (8)
Too abrupt and terse. Not really a document. Looks more like notes jotted
down.
II. (6)
Expected some more details on the interface - I am wondering if this
is web based or not? May be some samples of what you are discussing
would have helped.
III. (6)
Report is abrupt. Does not explain (rather assumes) what this is about.