Embedded Files
Introduction: Our team provides consistently clear, insightful, and comprehensive reflection on, and value judgment of, each major step in the project. We have determined that our project had plaws starting at the design process, mainly the planning stage, where we should have focused more on collaboration rather than development.
During the design process, our team would have focused more on group collaboration with the other groups. The Nanolab GUI is designed to interact with the other Nanolabs, and our team thought that after creating the interface itself, we could then integrate the Nanolabs into the design. This posed a issue because of the vary in hardware and programming. Our team would make sure that we would code the graphical user interface to the same hardware each Nanolab was using. We have recommendations from the NASA mentor Florence Gold who recommended the interface nictitates visual strengths.
In our preliminary design, we designed a user interface based on visuals only and no functionality. We wanted our final design to be similar to our prototypes. This posed a more difficult issue than previously considered in the design process because adding visual graphics is difficult when incorporating the ideal functionality for the NASA Nanolabs.
Our group needed to further develop the data collection of the interface. With much improvement, our interface is now able to open and record the file selected. However this is the minimum for data collection since our group wants time and data of when the file was selected. We also want the file to be recorded directly into the interface.
The team struggled most with learning the brand new language, python, and coding an interface from little to no coding knowledge. This was difficult because of the fact that every function and feature was new and we had no idea what operations would interact with each other (this would induce syntax and run-time errors). Our team instead should have learned how to develop and interface using a "GUI make" and interface issuance tool which would have predefine python functions that would simulate a graphical user interface.
LabDek: A rather crude but simple interface make that uses the python language. An option where we designed a prototype and was able to record and use data well. Accessible online.
Anvil Works: A visually appealing interface that has great functionality features. Not as many data features but easy to use. Multiple porotypes were designed. Accessible online.
Kivy: A interface designer similar to Anvil works, however it was less visually appealing and less functions. Has a good number of features for data analysis. One prototype was designed. Accessible online.
If our team were to use a interface maker or designers, we would have chosen Anvil Works, and easy to use and powerful program that is accessible online. This is advantageous because it will work cross platform and also is able to analyze data effectively.
Conclusion: Our team should have put more effort into group collaboration before designing the interface itself. By collaborating, our group could focus more on interface functionality along with visuals.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse