1. Project Proposal #4

2. Should this proposal be considered for the Best Proposal prize?  Yes

3. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity of the proposal?  9

4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea? 10


*Overall, is the proposal clear, concise, and well-organized?

	The proposal was very clear. For the most part, it was easy to follow along with what Bennett, Campbell, and Joebert are planning to do. The only thing I felt a little fuzzy
about after reading through the proposal was how OpenCV was being incorporated into the project. This may stem from my relatively limited background knowledge of the subject, but
my understanding is that OpenCV is used to process visual data obtained by a computer system or robot. Being that this project is using a simulation, I’m not quite following how
Open CV will be used. If a simulated camera is being used to track the puck and its orientation, that should be mentioned in the proposal.

	I really liked the method of organization Bennett, Campbell, and Joebert employed in their proposal. I felt that it had a good flow, making the project easy to follow and
understand. I also felt that the written portion of the proposal was very concise and lent itself to being fairly easy to read. However, I felt that some of the included test
diagrams added quite a bit of fluff. For me, depicting the different orientations to be used for each shape and then showing the three locations each orientation would be tested
from would be sufficient.

* Does the proposal meet the posted proposal guidelines?

	This proposal more than meets the requirements for a project proposal in 585X. It included all of the necessary components and added a few that really added to the effectiveness
of the proposal. I especially liked the inclusion of the “Risks” portion. That showed me that the authors were already anticipating the difficulties they would be facing in the
project.

* How does the project idea fit within the framework of Developmental Robotics?

       Object affordances fit into the framework of Developmental Robotics very nicely. As stated in their “Previous Work / Related Work” section, affordances are qualities of
objects that are obtained in a developmental way. They must be learned through repeated interaction with the object. By taking a project already completed in the field and turning
it around, the authors have constructed a very good project. The method the authors will be employing to understand the affordances of the pucks also plays into Developmental
Robotics very nicely. Instead of hard coding how each puck will react to the stick and different pushes and pulls, the robot is learning these characteristics through repeated
interaction with the pucks.

* Describe what you like BEST about the project idea.

       The best part of this project is that the authors are essentially taking a project already completed by our professor and doing its inverse. Instead of finding the
affordances of different tools on a single object, they are finding the affordances different objects have for a single tool. This will help to confirm Stoytchev’s findings, and
I’m sure the results will prove very interesting.

* Describe what you like LEAST about the project idea.

       My least favorite part of the project is that the authors are using a simulator to run the experiment. I may be completely wrong, but it seems that using a simulator to run
the experiment could be much harder than using an actual robot. It just seems very challenging to me to program a simulator to accurately model how the different pucks will react
to the tool.

* Do you have any concerns about the project?

       My only concern for this project is the exact same concern I have for my project and every other project: time. It seems like there is a lot to be done in a very limited
amount of time. However, it seems that the authors have a lot of experience in the field, which will be helpful in overcoming the short time frame.

* Does it seem doable in the remaining time?

       The project seems very doable, but it will take a lot of hard work to complete it in the time remaining in the semester.

* Does it seem too difficult?

	This project does not seem too difficult. The way that the authors have laid it out looks very good, and the group members seem to be very knowledgeable. I think they have a
very good grasp on what they need to do to meet their goals, and I think they have the ability to successfully complete the project.

* Are there any major details left out?

       I don’t feel that any major details were omitted.

* Does the idea rely upon technologies that are not currently available?

       This project relies only on the same technology that Stoytchev has already used in previous work, so no, the idea does not really on unavailable technology.

* Do you have any suggestions for improvement?

       The project and seems very good as it stands.

* Do you have any suggestions for related work that should be cited?

       The “Previous Work / Related Work” section is quite comprehensive and the references are very good. I cannot think of any additional work that should be cited.

* Any other comments or suggestions?

       I liked the reference to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Very nice.