CST300: Major ProSeminar, Week 8
Part 1: Review Other Teams' Final Video Projects
Group 4: Quantum Computing
General Public
General Public
Evaluation & Suggestions:
Topic Coverage:
The topic of quantum computing is covered in a very approachable and beginner-friendly way. The team did a good job explaining complex concepts like qubits, superposition, and entanglement without overwhelming the viewer. It provides a solid high-level overview appropriate for a general audience.
Clarity of Presentation:
The narration was clear and easy to follow. Definitions were introduced with simple analogies (like the coin flip), which helped make abstract ideas more digestible.
Quality of Research:
The information presented was accurate and relevant. It touches on the potential impact of quantum computing in areas like medicine, AI, and cybersecurity, which shows thoughtful research. However, it could benefit from a few more concrete examples or sources mentioned to strengthen credibility.
Video Production Quality:
The visuals were clean and matched the narration well. The overall style was minimal, which kept it focused but also made it feel a bit plain. Some more dynamic visuals or transitions might have helped hold attention better.
The visuals were clean and matched the narration well. The overall style was minimal, which kept it focused but also made it feel a bit plain. Some more dynamic visuals or transitions might have helped hold attention better.
Engagement and Interest:
The tone was casual and friendly, which works for the general public. However, the video was a bit under the 2-minute requirement and felt like it ended a little abruptly. Adding a short summary or call to action (e.g., “Here’s where to learn more”) could have wrapped it up more effectively.
Team Collaboration:
Great Collaboration, I liked that the team took a part in the script.
Overall Suggestion:
Great job explaining a tough concept in a simple and relatable way! I would suggest extending the video slightly with a real-world example or brief conclusion to meet the time goal and strengthen the impact.
Group 5: Digital Immortality, Can we life forever through technology?
General Public
General Public
Evaluation & Suggestions:
Topic Coverage:
The video introduces the concept of digital immortality in a compelling and thought-provoking way. It briefly explains what it is, how it works, and touches on both the benefits and the ethical concerns. The framing of the topic is creative and well-suited to spark curiosity, especially for a general audience.
Clarity of Presentation:
The use of AI-generated voices was an interesting and fitting choice, especially for a topic that centers on technology mimicking human presence. The pacing and structure were clear, and the script was easy to follow.
The use of AI-generated voices was an interesting and fitting choice, especially for a topic that centers on technology mimicking human presence. The pacing and structure were clear, and the script was easy to follow.
Quality of Research:
While the video doesn't go deep into the technical side or cite specific technologies, it effectively summarizes what digital immortality is and presents both sides of the argument. For the target audience (general public), the level of detail feels appropriate, though adding one or two real-world examples (like Replika or StoryFile) could further ground the concept.
Video Production Quality:
The video was visually impressive. The cinematic imagery and thoughtful use of music added emotion and depth to the topic. You can tell effort went into the editing and storytelling choices, which elevated the overall impact of the video.
The video was visually impressive. The cinematic imagery and thoughtful use of music added emotion and depth to the topic. You can tell effort went into the editing and storytelling choices, which elevated the overall impact of the video.
Engagement and Interest:
This was one of the more engaging videos I watched. The concept itself is fascinating, and the delivery (especially the rhetorical question at the end) invited the viewer to reflect and connect personally. It balanced emotion and information well.
This was one of the more engaging videos I watched. The concept itself is fascinating, and the delivery (especially the rhetorical question at the end) invited the viewer to reflect and connect personally. It balanced emotion and information well.
Team Collaboration:
While the AI voices make it harder to hear distinct presenters, the smooth flow of the video, cohesive visuals, and consistent tone suggest strong teamwork behind the scenes.
Audience Appropriateness:
The video clearly targeted a general audience and nailed it. It simplified a futuristic idea in a way that was both relatable and emotionally resonant. The length met the required timeline and didn’t feel rushed or drawn out.
Overall Suggestion:
Great work! The tone, visuals, and topic delivery were well aligned. If anything, it would be great to include a source or brief on-screen reference to a real example of this technology in use today, just to strengthen the credibility and educational value.
Great work! The tone, visuals, and topic delivery were well aligned. If anything, it would be great to include a source or brief on-screen reference to a real example of this technology in use today, just to strengthen the credibility and educational value.
Group 1: Nomophobia
General Public
General Public
Evaluation & Suggestions:
Topic Coverage:
The video covered the topic of nomophobia well, clearly defining what it is and explaining both the psychological and technological reasons behind it. It also offered some relatable scenarios and practical tips for reducing screen dependence, which helped round out the presentation.
Clarity of Presentation:
Overall, the narration was clear, but at times the background music overpowered the speaker, which made some parts difficult to understand. Lowering the volume or choosing a subtler music track would improve clarity and make the information easier to absorb.
Quality of Research:
The research seemed appropriate for a general audience and touched on both the behavioral science and the impact of phone design. The mention of dopamine, screen time tracking, and suggestions like adjusting lighting or trying a phone-free day added useful depth.
Video Production Quality:
The visuals were entertaining and helped keep the video flowing. While not overly polished, the graphics were effective and matched the tone of the presentation. The story element about Johnny and the field trip was a fun, creative touch, though it felt a bit long in comparison to the rest of the video.
Engagement and Interest:
The video held my attention for the most part, though the professional version felt more like a continuation of the general public version instead of offering deeper insights or adapting the tone for a more technical audience. A few additional statistics or cited studies could help differentiate the two and elevate the content for a professional setting.
Team Collaboration:
The team each took part in the script. Teamwork was evident.
Audience Appropriateness:
The general public video was spot on for its intended audience, relatable, clear, and casual. The professional version, however, didn’t significantly shift in tone or content. A stronger differentiation in style or more technical detail would have made it feel more tailored for professionals.
Overall Suggestion:
This team did a good job making a relatable and well-organized video. With a few adjustments, like balancing the audio and offering more content variation between the general and professional versions, it could be even stronger. Great effort and creativity!
Part 2: Final Video Project
For our final video project, my team communicated consistently and effectively throughout the process. We held weekly meetings to check in on progress, discuss tasks, and review each phase of the project. We also used Discord to write out deadlines and coordinate any updates, questions, or changes that came up in between meetings.
One thing that really helped was being honest about our availability. If someone couldn’t meet a deadline, we communicated that early so we could adjust our timeline or redistribute tasks as needed. This made the process smoother and helped avoid last-minute issues.
Looking ahead, I think we could improve our collaboration by starting the research and design process earlier. That would give us more time to refine and polish the final product. Overall, I’ve learned a lot from this course, not just about the content but also about managing a team, staying organized, and working collaboratively in a technical environment.
Here are the links to our final presentations:
Comments
Post a Comment