Proposal Review 2

Hi,

The second proposal is entitled "SimpleMesh Project Proposal".

The gist of the second proposal is to create a very easy language (file format) that will allow novice users to write genuine 3D models easily.  Additionally, the project proposal supposes that this format can be easily read and written by scripts.  The second part concerns the creation of a model reader for this file type that allows basic navigation and other viewing.

My overall reaction is that the proposal has merit, especially in that is seems to be a (fairly) new idea (I myself have definitely found myself wanting something like this at one time or another).  However, I do feel like the proposal itself does not do the idea justice.  The paper is riddled with typographical and grammatical errors, and the proposal's structure could use some work.

Format: 4/10 = > 2.0/5.0
The paper is long enough that I feel like a table of contents might be useful.  There are a variety of headings used, inconsistently, to attempt to give some order to the paper.  However, the text itself seems haphazard.  I get lost in the middle trying to remember what exactly the purpose of a particular section is.  Some things would better be put in other places.  I support the author's inclusion of a terminology page to help readers unfamiliar with the topic area.

Writing: 4/10 => 2.0/5.0
The proposal has many errors.  I specifically noted many in all of grammar, verb agreement, punctuation, hyphenation, pronoun agreement, and sentence structure.  Spelling is mostly okay, although some typos manifest conspicuously throughout.  The writing itself is colloquial instead of professional, and reads like a transcript of a stream-of-consciousness monologue.  Although I previously mentioned this in the format critique, many sections feel out-of-place where they were put.  In fact, the entire thing doesn't appear to have been revised or proofread at all.  At least the general message is clear.

Goals and Tasks: 6/10 => 3.0/5.0
The author clearly has a good vision of what it is he wants to accomplish.  However, only some of this is successfully imparted to the reader.  The goals presented are at times vague, or alternately too precise (e.g., "the SimpleMesh project will consist of many adapter parts across many systems." versus "The orbiting distance[ in the viewer] can be adjusted by shift+up and shift+down.").  It should be said that everything the author wants done is present within the report; my complaint is that the goals can often only be inferred from the author's rambling prose.  My advice: short bullet points; expand as necessary.

Scope: 8/10 => 4.0/5.0
After reading the proposal, one actually has a surprisingly good idea of what the project entails.  I can't say I understand exactly what the boundaries are, because the project is deceptively open-ended, but I have a pretty good idea based on what the author intends to accomplish.  This is definitely something my report needs to work on too: I think an explicit this-is-in-but-this-is-out discussion would be beneficial.

Plausibility: 8/10 => 4.0/5.0
I think the project is definitely doable, but, like my project, I think a lot would depend heavily on the team.  I think that file parsing and semantics will be harder than the author anticipates.  Making the project general enough to be useful while still fulfilling its stated task of being incredibly easy would be a fine line the project would constantly have to tread (for example: "Can I use 3D textures?  Don't the texture coordinates have to be 3D?  Can I do that with your system?").  I feel like a more concrete plan would improve plausibility, although I may just be getting confused by the inconsistent language of the document.

Novelty: 9/10 => 4.5/5.0
The project isn't completely novel, but I think it would fill a much-needed void in graphics.  As I said above, it will be a fine line of complexity.  But, I think the idea is basically new to this field, and would be useful besides.

Stakeholder Identification: 9/10 => 4.5/5.0
The stakeholders are never identified explicitly, but the author does in fact state that the project is for people who know next to nothing about graphics ranging to people who just want quick and easy fixes for modeling applications.

Support and Impact: 8/10 => 4.0/5.0
The author identifies the project as open source and expects it to subsist, at least at first, on a PayPal donation button.  I've had a PayPal donation button on my webpage of free tutorials and projects for about five years, and--though those resources have found at least some audience--as of today, no has ever clicked it.  Not even once.  But, I think it might be plausible, and honestly I can't suggest a better option for an open source project, so I can't really complain there.  The section is brief and could be in more detail, but overall, I think this section is pretty good.

Evidence: 6/10 => 3.0/5.0
The author presents some information, but generally it expects readers to assume that such a product would be useful.  To some degree, this is obvious (both having experience in this field, and through reading between the lines of this proposal), but it's never clearly stated.

Challenges and Risks: 4/10 => 2.0/5.0
The author acknowledges some of the major challenges, including the difficulty of using 3D APIs, but this is only part of the project.  A huge part of the project seems to be the .smpsh file format they plan on inventing from scratch.  This is not even mentioned as a challenge.  Lexical analysis and parsing of custom file formats, while certainly possible in this time period, is still a significant challenge that should not be taken lightly.  The author also mentions the difficulties of making a website and making sample meshes.  I agree that these are challenges, but like all the challenges of the project, the discussion about them--and more importantly how to solve them--is either lacking or nonexistent.  The author stresses creativity as a requisite for overcoming challenges.  That's good, but it doesn't really address the specifics of what will make this project challenging, nor how to address those concerns.

So: overall, I think this is a comparatively excellent idea.  As stated above, I think that the proposal could benefit from being restructured and cleaned up in the ways enumerated.

Ian