(jsinapov@iastate.edu)
line "HCI 585X: Proposal Reviews".

1. Proposal number
    #11
2. Should this proposal be considered for the Best Proposal prize? (yes/no)
    no.
3. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity
of the proposal? (1-10)
    8	
4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea? (1-10)
    8


       The proposal is very clear and immediately explains the projects goals and tasks. It is clearly stated what a success would be at the end of the project, as well as why it
would be considered a success. It is organized very well and the paper is written very with strong flow. It was easy to follow through the whole paper without having to read
anything and try to understand it better.
    The proposal fits within the frame of the guidelines.
     This fits well in developmental robotics and would be very useful if successful, but not necessarily for the reasons that was suggested in the proposal.

    I like the concept of teaching the robot how to learn to use a tool that is not actually being held.(in this case the light itself not the flashlight.) There are several
problems that rear itself in the paper. The number one problem is that it doesn’t seem to be that much of a challenge. The robot is just going to measure the efferent-afferent
delay system from its own movements and track the movement of the light as well. This is a good idea, however it would be more successful if the robot had a light mounted into its
body or head, as miners would wear a helmet with a light on it to free up there hand. It is an entirely different project if the robot is not learning the movement of the light
associated with the movements of its hand. It would have to be redone entirely to teach it how to follow a light and determine whether or not the light that it is tracking is
being caused by itself or another robot or light source. Doing this would allow the robot to work in an environment that is filled with other robots or light sources, like it is
in almost every situation noted by the authors in the proposed use of the projects results.   One of the problems with this idea is that the project doesn’t add any information on
how the project’s success can be taken to another level.

    The concern that strikes the reader the most is that lack of who is going to do what. It is clear what each person is capable of doing, but it isn’t clear what task will be
accomplished by who. It is even stated at a particular point that several of the team members are learning a language to get this project done.
    One of the problems with this idea is that the project doesn’t add any information on how the project’s success can be taken to another level.

    The concern that strikes the reader the most is that lack of who is going to do what. It is clear what each person is capable of doing, but it isn’t clear what task will be
accomplished by who. It is even stated at a particular point that several of the team members are learning a language to get this project done.
There is too much of a focus on the works being done with accordance to the work that has already been done. Once the robot learns to use the light, there is no easily
identifiable reason that the robot wouldn’t be able to use the algorithm from the button pushing experiment as the only difference in the two ideas is a specific lighting.

The project seems like it can be accomplished in the time allotted.
   The task actually seems to easy.

 the biggest detail that is left out of the proposal is the behaviors and movements that the robot will actually do, and how the data analyzing it would be set up to understand
the success/failure.
It might be a better idea to read  aloud the paper before submission. Help get rid of typos and repetitive words in the proposal. It is very important in a proposal to remember
what is being deleted and changed in the writing and editing process.
It seems throughout the paper that a section was taken out and/or reworded without seeing the thought through. At one point a sentence just cuts off and picks up later in the
paper, this seems like something that would happen if while editing a paper someone copies too much of the paper and wasn’t checked to see if it the flow from sentence to sentence
was good. Although the writing itself is very good it has some redundant and often reused sentence structures that didn’t take away from being able to actually read and understand
the paper , nonetheless they are eyesores The last thing that seems to stand out is the use of flow-charts to introduce an idea shouldn’t have specifics in it. Such as, make sure
the robot is holding the flashlight. Reading thoroughly through the part that discuss the flow of the project, it is difficult to see why that step was included.