Element J: DOCUMENTATION OF EXTERNAL EVALUATIONS

Judges Evaluation of Presentation

We messed up on this portion as we originally thought that this was for presentation and emailed several people this as such. However, for some reason, we got it in their heads that our entire project not just the presentation for the evaluation this has majorly messed up our results and we are sorry that we

This information is from Beth McGarr and due to what we stood above and how we messed up this evaluation + the fact that with our recording we did not have the best of audio quality with her having to use another device that's loud enough to listen to it, this is more likely for her evaluation of our project rather than the PowerPoint however we will ask and clarify. This also made us think that we didn't have to present it to her however we clearly were wrong. Transcribed below is what is to make the document for scoring more blind accessible we transferred the questions to a different document that had a lot of the marks and stuff stripped from it so that it would be more accessible.

Beth McGarr scores

On a scale of 1 to 10, was the problem statement clearly stated and defined?

10

On a scale of 1 to 10, Did the team present information that supported their problem statement?

10

On a scale of 1 to 10, Was there evidence given that the team researched and reviewed the current and past Solutions before deciding to pursue their own unique solution to the problem?

10

On a scale of 1 to 10, Did the team clearly State the objectives of their project?

10

On a scale of 1 to 10, Were the objectives tied to and supported by their problem statement in justification?

10

On a scale of 1 to 10, Did the Prototype design address all of the objectives that were stated?

10

Was the method for testing the Prototype a well-defined procedure designed to yield unbiased to data?

7 

We did meet with Meade Erickosn and he said that he would fill out our evaluation for us off of the PowerPoint we presented to him but we have not received anything back from him. To try to get information from the rest of our stakeholders we have sent three mass emails to them and have also sent more tailored emails to James Gagnier, Steve Thomas, Harold Weber, Christopher Mier, Jim Mishek and McGarr only receiving a contact back from Mcgarr.

Judges Evaluation of the Poster

I cannot access this Google doc and I just noticed it was a Google doc as I thought it was white space for the the judges comments on our poster.

Response to Evaluations

We need to fix this quickly, the response we did get is extremely valuable if not flawed as it comes from one of our direct stakeholders. But due to our users being blind, it's a little hard for us to present a heavily visual PowerPoint to them. However to steal from our expert survey and the feedback we got from our virtual meetings we should have done testing with a way larger pool of subjects and to actually put our device in more of the hands of people who are visually impaired. However for the most part they think our stuff is good and in fact, we had more comments clarifying that are braille was good on the first prototype we gave Beth McGarr and since then we've been trying to make it even better and more legible. We were told that we need to sell ourselves more and focus more on the good aspects of our project, rather than the parts we could have done better on. We definitely need to practice the presentation more to gain more confidence and we also found that during this process that our presentation is within the right time frame so we're just trying to shorten it a little bit more to be extra safe on time. With the responses we have so far they have seemed pretty positive about our project and we hope that we can wrap up this project better than this segment.