Week 8 - CST 300

Part I

Team: Otter Devs

1. is the topic well covered? The topic covered is AR/VR in Education. It discussed a variety things related to the core topic and I found it to be informative. 

2. is the presentation clear? The presentation was clear and included both background information on AR/VR as well as several other topics, including the applications of this technology in a school and healthcare setting. The section covering mental health was especially interesting to me given my previous work experience.

3. how is the quality of the research? The quality of the research was good. The team provided a lot of information its potential uses as well as concerns regarding accessibility and cost. 

4. how is the quality of the video production? The video quality was good, it was primarily presented as a slideshow, which was easy to follow along with key points in the presentation. 

5. is the video engaging and interesting? The video was both engaging and interesting. One section that I found interesting was the portion related to mental health and 

6. is the team work evident? Yes, it appeared each team member was assigned a section and completed their work on that, including the voiceover. 

7. is the video appropriate to the audience (either general public or technology professionals). I found both videos to be appropriate for the audience and easy to follow.

Team: Gigabit Goon Squad

1. is the topic well covered? The topic covered is Brain-Computer Interface (BCI). The topic appeared to be well covered and included a lot of information on the history, mechanism, applications and the ethics surrounding this technology. 

2. is the presentation clear? The presentation was clear and provided interesting information on the history of BCI and several other key points. It was easy to follow along. 

3. how is the quality of the research? The quality of the research was good. The team provided a lot of information the mechanism, potential uses as well as concerns regarding accessibility and cost. It included a lot of information that was not readily available to common knowledge. 

4. how is the quality of the video production? The video quality for the presentation was good. Just as with the previous video I watched, it was also in a PowerPoint format that listed key elements on each slide and presented it clearly.

5. is the video engaging and interesting? I found the video to be both. My opinion on this is slightly biased as I've always had an interest in this topic, and neuroscience in general, but I felt that the presentation provide a lot of information that I was not even aware of and different ways in which this technology could be utilized. 

6. is the team work evident? Team work was evident and it appeared as if each teammate contributed to the final project. 

7. is the video appropriate to the audience (either general public or technology professionals). I found it to be appropriate and slightly more technical than expected, especially the portion regarding mechanism of the BCI (i.e. invasive versus non-invasive).

Team: Super4 Web Solutions

1. is the topic well covered? The topic covered is the idea of the "Eternal Human" and immortality. The topic itself was covered decently and did provide good information, some of which I did not know and was interested in learning more about. 

2. is the presentation clear? The presentation was clear and provided a good amount of information on the topic, however certain sections could have included a more in-depth analysis. 

3. how is the quality of the research? The quality of the research was good. There were a lot of concepts that related to this idea of the eternal human, including singularity and transhumanism. It also included information on the technology that is currently being used and the ethical implications, including overpopulation.

4. how is the quality of the video production? The video quality was decent, some of the pictures used and slides didn't seem too appropriate for the audience (professional) and could have included some information on what was being discussed, since it was presented as a slideshow. 

5. is the video engaging and interesting? I found the video to be engaging, it did seem to facilitate between being technical and theoretical which I found to be interesting. 

6. is the team work evident? Team work was evident and each person appeared to have contributed to the video. 

7. is the video appropriate to the audience (either general public or technology professionals). I found the videos to be appropriate for the audience. Both were informative and provided a decent amount of information on a technology that appears to be not yet fully implemented or developed.

Part II

Final Research Videos:

General Public Video: 
https://youtu.be/E7WUVXfvPfA?feature=shared

Computing Professionals Video: 
https://youtu.be/5jrRYan6oOA?feature=shared

Overall, I've learned more about collaboration and working within in team. The OLI modules presented more information on recognizing conflict, addressing conflict, work styles and various other topics that interrelated to each other. While OLI presented information on this, the assignments in class provided several opportunities to work with the rest of my group, including the final video project. I learned a lot throughout this course that I will apply to the rest of the CS program as I progress through it.