ROBERTO CARLOS FLORES
[email protected] November 8th, 2016
REVISION PLAN
Navigation: Both of the reviewers agreed that the website has a good presentation in terms of accessibility. None of them had problems to access the different components tasks and subtasks. The top and left menu worked pretty well according to the comments seen in the review. I agree with them on because the website looks very intuitive to navigate and there are not disruptors or confusing elements. Prior the evaluation, there was something I was worried about. I tried to include a menu in the left because it was not in the layout I chose. I found in one of the feedbacks a comment about making this look different. George pointed out the idea of making it movable when scrolling down to have better access to the menu. I knew this could be a weakness and it was a little bit noticeable. Both of my reviewers gave credit to the menu but I liked the feedback I received from George. In order to make the navigation look better, I would look for online tutorials on how to include left menus in a website. Another option may be to look for forums in which website developers may provide explanations that may help me shape this idea. Relevance: According to the comments I read from my peers, there are relevant artifacts in my portfolio and the subtasks match the description of the components. I got good comments about the quality of the material I have included as well as the number of examples. What I could detect as weakness is that there are some artifacts that need revision. For example, in the development section, I may focus more on the development of the process and not the final product. Also, it caught my attention that there are two comments in the evaluation section that I must strongly consider. After the peer evaluation, I think the evaluation section is the weakest part of my portfolio. The arrangements for this section would be to evaluate again the artifacts I presented in the development subtasks. I will look for more specific examples in developing material. Also, I will look for more relevant evaluation examples. Summative and formative evaluation is something important to include and I have to more precise on this subtask. Content I received good feedback in this section. Most of the times they were comments on the subtasks having enough number of artifacts. I read nice comments on media production
artifacts and how professional my work looks. Both reviewers expressed that the amount of material was enough as I tried to incorporate more than two examples per each subtask. A weakness that I detected and my peers also did was about the lack of material in the evaluation section specially in the Criterion Reference Measurement (CRM) as well as management. It was a bit difficulty for me to come up with an example of CRM and this affected the overall perception of this task. Something I want to highlight here is that I submitted the link with some sections that were incomplete. One of my peers evaluated my portfolio one or two days later but I incorporated the missing parts a couple of days later. Obviously, the feedback I got from him was to include more material and describe the artifacts. Nevertheless, I developed this before my other peer checked my website and because of this there are some mismatched comments. The action I will take to make this area look more complete is to read the matrix again in order to understand better what I need to include for the development and management section. Also, I will check carefully if there is something I may include for the CRM. Functionality Andrew and George provided positive comments about the functionality in terms of loading the page and the links I provided. I may say that both reviewers could perfectly see the material I shared in my portfolio and this was satisfying to read. The weakness of this section was to make sure that all the content loads in the most common web browsers. To be honest, I did not think about it until one of my peers mentioned that he had problems to load my resume. He used Firefox and mentioned that he could not read it because it did not reflect anything. In order to solve this issue, I will look for information related on WordPress problems when loading embedded documents in different browsers. I may also look for another plugging to display documents on the website or just simply incorporate the information as a normal text. Appearance: I could see that both of the reviewers liked the layout I used for my website. They shared good comments on the text I used as well as the colors. I wanted to make this portfolio be visually attractive and I think it looks nice and professional. One weakness I saw about the appearance and one of my peers let me know is about the links of the files. He mentioned that I should make it more predominant to differentiate it between normal text. I totally I agree on this and I consider it as something to change. What I will do here is to edit the color for the links and use the normal color which is blue. This may be helpful as it may be easier for other viewers to detect where the link is.
LINK TO THE WEBSITE: http://rcarlosflores.com/reflections/