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.
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.
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