Proposal peer review is a technique of evaluating and analyzing a project proposal for the purpose of making sound decisions in the implementation of the proposed project (OECD, 2011). This document entails a peer review on an fruit recognition android application proposal. This report provide a thourough analysis of the whole proposal in terms of clarity of the proposal, technical soundness of the application proposed, difficulties and overall suggestions (Ludke, 2011). These eavaluations are discussed one by one below.
Proposal Clarity of the fruit recognition application
This proposal has clearly stated the problem that the application is intended to solve. That is, the fruit recognition application is meant to identify various issues surrounding identification of fruits across all ages. The proposal outlines a clear process in which the application will help solve this problem by providing detailed information of the detected fruit captured by the phone. These statements are easy to understand since they are clearly presented into the proposal. The proposal also has clearly outlined all the requirements for a successful implementation of the application. These include visual recognition software, an HD camera, internet and a fruit database. This provides criteria in which the project should be funded to its completion (Abbott, 2011).
Proposal Technical Soundness
The student has clearly outlined the application architecture of how the operation of the application would be. This paints a picture of what the application will consist of in terms of modules and the relationship involved (Clements, 2009). This architectural representation breaks down the application into small. The fruit recognition application modules outlined is; life cycle handling, liveData, ViewModelling and Room. These technical terms are well defined. The relationship and explanation of these components are well defined and this will enable users to understand easily the operation of the entire application (Clements, 2009).
The use of use case diagram as depicted in the fruit recognition proposal provides a wider picture of the users interactions with the application (Swafford, 2008). The diagram provides all the system functionalities that are clear and easy to follow. This approach familiarizes the user with the system even before it is developed.
These diagrams are related to the solution of the fruit recognition problems stated by the student and they clearly represent what the solution entails (Fruit recognition application). The use of these diagrammatic illustrations as seen in the proposal portrays a high degree of creativity in painting a clear picture of the whole application. Also with the use of the provided references the proposal provides an overview of what the whole project is all about. The references are related to the proposed application and this ensures that the user has more information regarding the whole project.
Difficult level of the proposed system
In the proposal some of the graphical user interfaces have been provided showing how the the application would be. Explanations on the different interfaces shown have been provided detailing all the activities and interactions involved when navigating through that application (Leiter, 2015). The green color used on the interfaces relates well with the application. The GUI’s are consistent throughout even though the text structure is somehow wanting in order to make it more user friendly. A clear step by step process of operating the application provided, even though some of the words are more technical and users may not be able to understand. For example, gamification elements. The structure of the database is represented in the class diagram even though the diagram is not clear. Therefore a clear class diagram should be provided. The proposal does not provide a clear internet connection process. This is important because not every user of this application is aware on how to connect to the internet.
Use of relevant images i.e. fruits on the interfaces.
Provide clear class diagram or use ER diagrams for database illustrations.
Provide a clear step by step explanation of each interface.
Use less technical words.
Improve text visualizations. Avoid crowding of words.
Abbott, A. (2011). A how-to for peer review. A guide surveys the range of practices in Europe — and offers suggestions for improvement., 1-2.
Clements, P. (2009). Softaware Architecture. Microsoft Application Architecture Guide, 1-5.
Leiter, B. (2015). Importance of Mock ups to designers. Why mockups are useful for designers?, 1-7.
Ludke, K. (2011). Sample Abstract and Peer Review. PG Research Methods CACE11001 (2012-13), 1-2.
OECD. (2011). ISSUE BRIEF PEER REVIEW. The issue in a nutshell , 1-14.
Swafford, S. (2008). Importance of Use Case. UML Diarams, 1-3.