cgd1jb

Jonathan Barron


 * clips** - we only got static clips, so these are well presented. I did ask for them on TuDocs, but the blog is OK - can you post them at TuDocs too for future use? There is no real classification of the photos. Not sure how much more could have been done with them. So, falls into did-what-asked-to-be-done but stops there - B1 (60%)


 * personal report** - I suppose I must blame myself that every report read so far has been unreflective. This is a fair blow by blow account, but lacks that element of standing back and thinking: why? what? who? when? to inform later professional practice. So, OK, but falls a tad short - C (45%)


 * QA Plan** - this is an outworking of the QA plan, but needs quite a bit more evidence of it having been planned as well as done (but more of that later in the testing report, I expect.) You should have shown more visibile consideration of who will test, when they willt est, what they will test, how you will act upon feedback, etc. So, some evidence, but not a lot - D (32%)


 * roll-out plan** - this is much better. With a major, totally-thought-out project you will get more and more detail to such a plan. but this shows a good depth of thought, and a clarity of rpesentation which shows coverage of major aspects of the development. It reflects the fact that the team, while not perfect in tis planning, was never overwhelmed by events, but reacted well to them. A good piece of work, even perhaps an examplar of how to keep a lot of detail in a small place - A (72%)


 * QA data gathering** - a very clear presentation of this work. Not too many words. Goo to see how the three different testing scenarios are presented: as you show, just be honest and make the most of what you find. The data analyses are good. I like that you have presented both qualitative (words) and quantitative (numbers) analyses, and not tried to over-read into the data gathered. Thanks for the scans too as extra proof. A strong piece of work - A (71%)