Report evaluation: Blokoj

This week DinoTopHat will join forces with a fellow student group called "Blokoj". Just like us they had to create a casual game and keep improving it systematically. Now it's time to collaborate and critically analyze each other's evaluation reports in order to obtain a better end product. Blokoj  (and us) should see this as a means of improvement and not as a means to thwart each other's work. Below you'll find a list of good and bad things (according to us) and which things we'll take into consideration for our next evaluation.

Good things:

• The Goal of the evaluation in report 1 is clear 
• The sections in report 1 stay on the subject of the report and do not wander off.
• Phenomenons are clearly explained as are the cause of actions.
• Report 2: added figures are good and should be done more often.
• Report 2: Result section is thoroughly written and recap of the results is good (way better than in report 1).
• It was good that you clearly separated the expert from the other users. Even contacting him a second time to receive more base knowledge was good.

Bad things: 

• A better kind of lay-out  would improve the readability and different sections (eg.: colors like the appendix).
• The amount of "we" is very high in both reports, this should be avoided as it almost immediately bothered us when reading the report.
• The link to the questionnaire in report 1 and the link to the results are broken.
• The results in report 1 (where the amount is standing between brackets) is very unclear. In report 2 this is handled a bit better. Graphs and box plots should be included for more readability.
• In report 2 it was unclear why you won't test on desktop anymore (this is just a minor comment).
• In both reports it seems like you want to test a lot of things at the same time, some might even influence one another. A big part of report 2 is the same as report 1. 
• Report 2 didn't seem to add much results to report 1 (report 2 was worked out way better but the end conclusion in both reports seemed almost the same). Wouldn't it have been better to immediately add a tutorial (or multiple tutorials) and test in evaluation 2 which one would be better? 
• Small typo in report 2 page 5 in "praktisch verloop": "Hierna moesten ze enkele vragen te beantwoorden".

Small recap and what to remember:

The first things we noticed while reading the report was the amount of "we", try writing some of these sentences different. The full-black lay-out should be made a little more colorful to increase readability (in our opinion). Adding figures and graphs/box plots for the result section would make a conclusion more visible. Adding these features to a report would increase the quality drastically.

Testing a lot of things at the same time can sometimes lead to unclear parts of an evaluation, smaller reports testing only 1/2 features is key to a clear and well written report.

The reports of DinoTopHat do not hold into account all of the above. The students of Blokoj might find other things important that we did not notice. Their critical evaluation will be key for improving our reports even further and we hope that our evaluation can aid their cause.