There are several changes that I thought about making to our group schema. First of all, I think that a global reference element would be useful. In my writing, I refer to several statistics that reflect how much work would need to be done. This includes prices of tasks and the number of traffic lights that the Boston Transportation Department controls. It would be nice to be able to denote a reference so the reader can view the source of these statistics. One other thing with the schema is that I found myself wondering how much detail I should be putting into each section. Some sections kind of overlap so I didn’t want to include information twice. I felt as though the overall layout of the schema helped me write, however. It was easy to separate my thoughts into the different categories and elements.
My partner’s composition looked fairly similar to mine. Seth’s was laid out a bit better than mine I think. Most of my sections ended up being written in paragraphs while his had concise bullet points that were then explained. This conveyed the information much more clearly as the reader was able to look at each bullet and know the exact success criteria or preliminary requirement. I would say that we could potentially make these sections require bullet points so that the writer knows to explicitly state each preliminary requirement. I think we might want to consider getting rid of the feasibility section and maybe add a feasibility summary option at the end of success criteria. After you explain what it means for the project to be a success, we could then explain how feasible it would be to complete the tasks listed in that section.
