Jossie Barron

“Augmented Reality: The Future for Computer Games”

SUMMARY – a strong paper, worthy of publication in a good trade magazine but a bit lightweight for such as IEEE(!); the pros and cons are well presented and the story flows well; there is perhaps some more scope to be critical of technologies during the paper; the paper manages to end without getting frothy; rather good work.

GRADE – B1 (67%)

  • general layout – in most academic papers the abstract is less journalistic and drier; there are some small grammar and a few spelling issues here and there, such as the use of the apostrophe to indicate a plural before 's' and 'gage' for 'guage' (not sure about all the American spelling either); but the abstract is clear for a paper in a good quality trade publication; end of p6 'marketing' heading has gone loose from the text;

  • introduction - clear

  • conclusions – 'fairly limitless' has no real meaning, drop adjectives if they don't add clarity; the John Sutherland quote made me smile because Prof Morrison at St Andrews did this too (quoted somebody else – in this case IBM – and the secondary nature of the reference was lost; it was IBM, not me); careful with generalities such as ;the only problem I can foresee'; I would propose that mobiles are likely to be important because they are rapid-turnover technologies and are nigh ubiquitous (but I may be wrong.)

  • flow – when using abbreviations – e.g. HMD – always give the full name the first time with the abbreviation in parentheses; it can be difficult, I appreciate, quoting things from the 1960's and 1980's and relating them to today's technologies and their uses; I too tend to use random-ish quotes to set a new section as it clears the reader's mind and creates a mental break to allow a new section to be explored; the ARQuake in figure 7 is just downright stupid IMHO!;

  • support – the use of secondary referencing is OK in this context, but can be seen as weak in a more academic paper, however where the primary source is such as Presence you are on safe ground, often because the original paper can be difficult to source; not quote Harvard, but it'll do; remove the blue underlines when you go to paper copy and break up the long URLs so they fit on lines like ordinary text