Mobile Projects 2009-2010

Projects Evaluation
Academic Year: 2009/2010

Maximum points 15 (50% of the total)

Students: 3861 and 4827
Grade: 15
Motivations:The project is implementing rather simple functions but everything is working without any problem. Installation was easy and I did not find any difficulty. The report is very long, well written, describing carefully the process followed, the motivations, the implementation and also the evaluation. It is noteworthy that the students contacted some users to get first some idea about the application functions and then they collected feedbacks on the resulting application. It is also using the PIM optional library to send SMS to contacts. The project is also using XML parsing on the phone. In summary, it is a very good project.

Students: 4415
Grade: 14
Motivations:Installation was not so easy; I had to search in the file system to locate the directory that corresponds to the file system assigned to a specific emulator (i.e., defaultCLDCPhone1 is in directory 6). The functions of this application are somewhat limited. When searching for a bus stop the user has to input “exactly” the name of the bust stop that is written in the file containing all the bus stops, it does not even search for a substring or a partial match. This functionality is basically not useful. The only way to find a bus stop is from the list of bus stops. Anyway, the project runs without major problems but, as I mentioned above, the user functions are minimal. The code is well structured. The report is very short but enough to understand the work done.

Student: 8503 and 8501
Grade: 15
Motivations: The project is well structured. The interface is easy to use and it supports the most natural activities that one can imagine for the target scenario. It uses both the location API and the WMA API. In summary it is very good application, given the time and resources constraints. The report is also very good, clear and informative.

Student: 10030313
Grade: 13+
Motivations: The server component is not implemented, so why asking to install it? The midlet is very simple. There is a mistake in the notation, in fact, in the information displayed about the user position “N” is referred to the longitude and “E” is referred to the latitude; this must be swapped. It is practically impossible to reach the target because one must get “exactly” the latitude and longitude position of the target. This is practically impossible, given the error of the GPS. There should be a softer test, i.e., the user is close to the position by less than 20 meters (e.g.). It is not really useful. The report is very limited and the technical problems that have been faced are really simple.

Students: 10030314 and 10030312
Grade: 15
Motivations: This is a very good project. The interaction is easy and the supported functions are very useful and well implemented. The project report is also informative and well structured. A minor comment: in the report what you called “itemDistance” is in fact the matching score. This is increased when two words in the two compared strings are matching.

Students: 6064 and 6150
Grade: 15
Motivations:Excellent report, very detailed and clear. The installation instructions were not very informative and I needed to contact the students. Anyway the project was well designed, the motivations are clear and the idea is nice: it could be exploited in a real application.

Students: 6152 and 5778
Grade: 15+
Motivations: The report is very well written. The project is really excellent. Complete set of functions, easy and fun to use. Initially the students did not provide instructions to install the project.

Students: 6142 and 5779
Grade: 15+
Motivations: No instructions about how to install and run the application (they were stored in the same directory of the source code). A part from that the project is really excellent. The report is well done and the students have used advanced techniques, such as the integration with google maps.