In writing my individual entry for writing project two, I wrote most of the text in a normal word processor. After writing all of the sections outlined by the schema, I transferred the text to Oxygen. I kept the schema in mind throughout the writing process, but it only became concretely part of the process at the end. The schema that we designed for feasibility reports felt appropriate to that genre. As noted above, the schema was kept in mind, which definitely helped to guide my writing. No actual examples come to mind, but just having the various sections outlining what I needed to cover in my report was very helpful. Looking at my partner’s report, the only thought that I had was how poorly I had used the schema and how desperately in need of revision mine was.
In regards to changing the schema, there are several ideas that come to mind. The first is the table of contents page, which I found rather confusing (although mainly due to the documentation). Generally, I would like to change the documentation to make it more specific as I found it vague throughout the writing of my report.
Using a schema designed by a group of five people versus a class of 20 odd people was noticeable. First, in creating the schema, there wasn’t a whole lot of discussion, something was proposed and we accepted it. Not to say that the process was bad, it was just something that I saw. Also, the schema was much less complex than the one created for the annotated bibliography. Having a room of people working on one problem simply leads to something more complex.
