Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Group Presentations Review: Intellectual Property

Interactive Architecture:

The first presentation on Intellectual Property was by the “Interactive Architecture” group.
Their presentation was quite well structured and had plenty of informative content. Their oral presentation varied, it was quite good when they where explaining points with their own words, demonstrating their understanding of the topic, but some of the group members tended to simply read off cards or the screen, meaning the oration was quite monotone and not very engaging.
Some members seemed quite tense and would rattle off large amounts of text with very little time to actually understand what was being said in-between, while other members where perhaps overly relaxed, meaning their sentences where vague and not particularly well structured.
The written presentation had some useful summaries of the various concepts in intellectual property, though the style in which these where presented was not very consistent, which suggests that the amount of collaboration prior to the presentation was fairly small. This was also evidenced in the presentation styles, as some members seemed far more confident or knowledgeable than others.
They had plenty of examples, but these seemed to all be external examples, with no reference to their actual project. Project-specific examples tend to be more useful than external ones since they show how you can take a product and then run through how to protect it, where as an external example tends to be finding something related to IP, then going backwards to the product, so you don't really understand the process taken to protect it. These examples where backed up by images, which where relevant and fairly well explained, if occasionally miss-scaled.
They also had a physical example, which was quite interesting and certainly engaged the audience more than images or text could.

Most of their members seemed to have a good understanding of IP, though some effort to make the presentation consistent beforehand would have been beneficial.

No comments:

Post a Comment