FINAL Grades for Review:

PLMK any errors you may find.  This was updated at 8:30pm with latest bundle of stuff under the door. 
Grades will be posted from this spreadsheet to eServices at 11:00 Tuesday morning.

Last 5 Quiz #1 HOL D1 Quiz #2 HOL D2 LAN Critique Quiz #3 HOL Web Critique Marked up Refs & Market Critique Total Pct of 111 Grade
00062 18 3 14 3 18
20.5 14 Adapted sample site, validates, is mobile-friendly, demo’s semantic markup, imported some UniCode 10 Thanks for marking up the rags about this most popular tech, is good for me to see 100.5 90.5 A
00423 11.5 3 5 2.5 17 Rack appears accurately labelled and jumpered, crossed lines and kinks in jumpers detract from a more pro looking diagram, keyboard is placed way high. The floorplan appears accurately drawn, is useful, has IP assignments, is short a couple of drops for printers. Reasonable bill of details includes requested summaries. Some columns are not wide enough to show totals and ###### is printed instead. Tapes are way too expensive. It’s customary to right-align columns of figures. 16 12.5 Misses spec for constrained, centered container for content but checks as mobile-friendly and valid, abuses h tags trying to demo semantic markup 10 Thanks for pounding a few relatively current fact into my head about this tech I don’t use, but know it drives tech 77.5 69.8 C
01445 2.5 2 4.5 3 14
13 14 Demo’s semantic markup, very simply styled site scores as mobile-friendly but has numerous validation errors 8
61 55.0 D
01623 14 1 12 3 17.5 Very clear and pro-looking purchasing docs, might be improved by right-aligning columns with decimals as is customary, small errors could be easy to correct following a meeting, left software out of summary of upfront cost. The bill of details misses the spec for four identical servers, and has some wild choices for equipment, would be easy to fix. The rack has a ‘secured server’ that isn’t spec’d and attaches the servers behind the DMZ to it instead of the ‘DMZ Switch’ as in the sketch, is otherwise accurately drawn, would be easy to fix. The floorplan misses spec for placing jacks behind or to the side of desk, almost every instance has a jumper dragged over the floor or baseboard. Also missed spec for curved shapes on bundle and Telecomm symbols. 19 13 Simply styled site is not mobile-friendly, has no viewport, has some validation errors. Brief page doesn’t validate, doesn’t demo semantic markup. 10 Your refs and brief on this popular topic are appreciated, good facts to see 89.5 80.6 B
01930 18 0 19 3 18
20 14 Quickly adapted class’s sample, kept it valid and demo’s semantic markup. Imported UniCode. 10 Is on-target for what I need to see about this tech I don’t see much of, refs with dollars and units are very good to see 102 91.9 A
02007 18 3 18 3 12 Found late submit… This was a way late submit and is not nearly the pro looking stuff usually submitted, nothing is complete, the bill of details and summary not there. Drawings were neat but incomplete. And, WTF are the first commands for your HOL #3 pico, nano, emacs when that assignment clearly says to use vi? PLMK. 13 9 Misses spec for centered, constrained container, lots of validation errors, style is broken and doesn’t apply, lots of UniCode and unset permissions in site. 4 Entirely blew off request for marked up original fact, is not good to see after a run of 20+ sheafs of marked up refs, which are stated as more important than the brief 80 72.1 C
02127 18 3 13 3 16 Diagrams are neatly drawn, floorplan missed request to use curved shape for wiring, rack appears accurate, is hard to see on the printed copy where jumpers would be more clear if pulled off the fronts of the servers. Misses required summaries and purchasing details are incomplete. 15 10 Demo’s semantic markup, unfortunately the site is broken, has validation errors, and isn’’t mobile-friendly, appears links to css are broken? 11 Marked up refs and your take good for me to see 89 80.2 B
02734 20 3 22 2.5 20 Super-detailed and clear diagrams, drops are shown separately in bundles like the would be pulled. Reasonable bill of details has requested summaries of on-line shopping carts, could be improved by showing subtotals per supplier in the spreadsheet that details them. 22 15 Used class’ sample code, kept it valid, demo’s semantic markup in brief 10 Fine survey of these shifting markets, plus refs 114.5 103.2 A
07471 20 3 20.5 3 20 Thoroughly pro stuff, enthusiastic response to the specs is appreciated, highy detailed stuff is good to see. Desktops are jumpered as described, every circuit is shown from switch to PC. Bill of details appears accurate, is summarized as requested. 19 15 Adapted samples, valid, marked up semantically 10 Rich set of docs was good to see. I’ve never had it in my cockpit, wonder what the approach to Ingalls Field would look like, if it gets the rocks off the right wingtip? 110.5 99.5 A
07811 17 1 18 1.5 17 Floorplan is nicely detailed and useful as drawn. Rack is sloppy in appearance with twisted, gnarly jumpers but appears accurately jumpered. Showing USB attachments from servers to the tape drives might not be a good idea, but is appreciated. Keyboard is placed too high to be useful. Reasonalbe bill of details is marred by not having ‘line total’ column wide enough to show totals, has ###### instead. Has requested summaries. Practice with the tools striving for a more clear, pro look if you want to include this in your portfolio. 18.5 1 Nothing there to score, empty index, Brief1 has un-marked up content and is loaded with UniCode 7 Was late, has no marked-up refs 81 73.0 C
08286 4 3 4 1 16 Found your late submit, is a reasonable bill of details with requested summaries. The drawings are clear, unfortunate choice of colors and the floorplan is way distorted otherwise the thing is clearly drawn. The rack isn’t polished as some but it does clearly label the DMZ and is accurately jumpered. 13 1 Nothing there to grade 0
42 37.8 F
08853 10 0 14 0 14 Resubmit was found, is not an accurate or polished doc, purchase orders are a mess as printed, can’t give this lots of points. The shape of the office has been way distorted and lots is missing, looks good, isn’t accurate 12 10 External css is not css, no centered constrained container for content, not mobile friendly, has obnoxious alert, has UniCode 6 Ancient references about hottest tech, no current market facts, blew off requirement for marked-up references that are so good to see 66 59.5 F
09011 20 1.5 21.5 3 20 Reasonable bill of details has requested summaries. Floorplan is nicely detailed, show drop #s, might want to make a pass to show jumpering of VOIP phone and PC on desks. The rack uses front/rear views appropriately except it shows fronts of switches in both views – might want to find actual switches at VisioCafe as generic shapes detract from finely detailed servers, tape drives and other components. Practice and tweak some, put this in a portfolio. 21.5 15 Adapted class’s sample, kept it valid, demo’s semantic markup fine 10 Break down those walls of text, use more paragraphs, your take on the rags is appreciated, lots is going to happen in this market 112.5 101.4 A
09177 10 3 14 2.5 19.5 Drawings are nicely detailed and very clearly drawn. Rack is missing IP assignments for the three servers on the secure switch. Find other stuff to draw, develop your style, get it in your portfolio 21 15 Does it all, lightweight css is stylish and responsive enough, demos semantic markup 10 Found a very good ref or two, is short on marked-up refs but is just what I needed to see about this sharply declining tech 95 85.6 B
09450 17.5 3 17.5 3 19 Cool block diagram shows proportions of purchase orders but no total cost was found. Reasonable set of purchase orders would be easy to tweak. Recurring cost summary is reasonable. On the floorplan, using a wider connector for the bundle would make the topology more apparent as would avoiding extra kinks and right angles. The diagram is useful as drawn but has a cluttered look, also places Telecomm jacks where none are needed and has jumpers pulled across floor or along the baseboard. The rack appears accurately labelled and jumpered, might want to use thinner or dashed lines in the callouts and place them so they don’t cross the jumpers. 20 13 Mobile-friendly, a couple of validation errors, doesn’t demo semantic markup, abuses p and h tags. Is an attractive site, good use of W3CSS 10 I grew up in CODASYL, IMS, and non-relational databases! The are not dead! Do the IBM Master the Mainframe Challenge! This is current stuff highlighted in shocking pink. Thanks 103 92.8 A
10828 15 3 18 3 18 Floorplan doesn’t use Telecomm symbol as requested to show wall jacks, bring the drops directly to the desks, also didn’t use curved shapes for drops as requested. The rack is clearly drawn and labelled, also misses spec for curved jumpers. A reasonable bill of details has requested summaries. 19 15 Tweaked at class sample, kept it valid and mobile-friendly plus demo’s semantic markiup 10 Thanks for finding and organizing these technical facts, is all good to see 101 91.0 A
12653 14.5 3 15 2.5 20 Nicely detailed rack and floorplan appear accurately drawn and labelled. The floorplan would benefit from using a thicker shape for the bundle, as drawn it doesn’t show the topology clearly, wouldn’t be pulled the way it’s drawn. A reasonable bill of details has the requested summaries. 22 13 Good use of W3CSS, a few validation errors, abuses h tags in semantic markup. Is an attractive site, might want to size images appropriately, takes a long time to load 11 Your refs and take on all this are very good for me to see, you should do an annual update for your portfolio 101 91.0 A
13411 10.5 3 13.75 0 16 Late, should be up by end of the day 14 12 Adapted mobile-friendly samples OK, but pages don’t validate and semantic markup is abused 10 These are favorite topics of mine, not covered in class this semester, your take on these arcane technologies is appreciated. 79.25 71.4 C
14275 9.5 3 15 3 19 Try for a front/rear view if you’re going to use the VisioCafe templates, the way you’ve drawn it the servers are mounted backwards on the rack. Mixing generic shapes with the actuals kinda detracts from a more polished look. Purcchase orders don’t have room for totals, have ####### instead. Please practice, tweak for clarity, and get these into your portfolio. 20 14 A few validation errors introduced to class sample which is otherwise well-adapted to the project. 10 Some marked up facts a little old, otherwise refs are all good to see. 93.5 84.2 B
14723 12.5 3 12.5 3 20 All rings true quickly, has requested summaries and good-looking purchasing docs. Diagrams are very clearly drawn, Visiocafe shapes used to good advantage. 15.5 14 Used deprecated center tag and got validation error, imported UniCode, otherwise simply styled site scores mobile-friendly. Semantic markup is emphasized in css style. Use some padding to keep text from crashing into the edges of the pages. 10 Thanks for digging a little at this, current refs like this are crucial for me to see 90.5 81.5 B
14772 20 3 17 2.5 19.5 Nicely detailed floorplan and rack diagrams appear accurately drawn. Rack would benefit from a pass to label the ethernet ports directly with IP assignments and avoid crossing lines between callouts and jumpers. Reasonable bill of details has requested summaries. 13.5 13 Quick adaptation of class’ sample code but introduced validation errors, no mention of SEO/semantics/accessibility 10 Lifewire, Firstpost dive is appreciated 98.5 88.7 B
15387 0 0 3 0

16 0


19 17.1 F
16194 14.5 1 20.25 3 18 The floorplan is kinda wild and undisciplined, the bundle could be 1/3 the width, missed spec to use Telecomm symbol and show the drops in the walls where they’d be jumper, and not directly the desk or printer as drawn, otherwise appears accurate and a lot of detail, the enthusiastic response to the assignment is appreciated. The network rack is likewise wild appearing, has a dozen jumpers crossed where none need to be, DMZ wiring is obfuscated, not made clear. The IP addresses don’t point to the ports as spec’d. Using a 2nd ethernet switch in the place of the KVM/Keyboard/Monitor drawer detracts from a pro look, aligning callouts. The column for Tax wasn’t requested, is usually shown as a line under the total. There appears no total for the office hardware, services, and rack. Practice at this stuff please, read the specs… 22 13 Missing doctype and few validation errors introduced to class’ sample, slightly abuses semantic markup by skipping a level instead of styling h2, otherwise fine job 10 Thank you so much for this enthusiastic romp through the rags about this tech, is all really good to see 101.75 91.7 A
16839 18 3 20.5 2.5 20 Monochrome diagrams are mostly clear, rack appears accurately drawn and jumpered but is hard to see DMZ as printed, might want to pull jumpers to the side to emphasize the DMZ. Reasonable bill of details has requested summaries. 15 14 Got mobile-friendliness with very lightweight css, has validation errors, OK demo of semantic page and content markup 10 My friends in the industry juggle analog, solid-state, leather pneumatics, wind, and digital all with equal aplomb, you could specialize in this 103 92.8 A
20082 15 1 17 3 19 Rack shows jumpers for old PBX, not the VOIP as spec’d. Lots of crossed jumpers and callouts make a jumbled appearance where clarity would be better. It does appear accurately labeled and jumpered but it’s hard to see. The floorplan doesn’t use the curved shapes for drops spec’d, and it pulls the drops way outside of the premises in mid-air and the neighboring properties, some Telecomm jacks are on the desks, not in the walls. A reasonable bill of details has the requested summaries. 16 15 Another good use of W3CSS, site validates, is mobile-friendly, OK demo of semantic markup 10 I appreciate your twisting Semantic Markup into the texture of your refs, all this is very good for me to see 96 86.5 B
21948 19 3 22 0 18
13 10 Stylish site, doesn’t demo semantic markup, is kinda anti-semantic markup, doesn’t include page about semantic markup/seo, stray tag invalidates the page, is good-looking and mobile friendly. Left red marks on permissions 10 Thanks for shaking down Gartner and Cnet, all this supports what I’ve seen in ‘factory training’ and I appreciate your take on it 95 85.6 B
26510 20 0 20 0 15
21 15 Mobile-friendly, very lightweight css, validates, demo’s semantic markup, assembled under some duress at the deadline with max aplomb... 10 Nothing in the rubber band? 101 91.0 A
28721 11.5 3 14.5 1 14
11 12 Lots of validation errors, abuses semantic markup, does score as mobile-friendly and is attractively styled and nicely responsive down to the hamburger 11 Thanks so much for the brief and the refs, are both good for me to see, is something I miss seeing from ‘factory training’ at IBM… 78 70.3 C
31332 15.5 3 17.5 3 19.5 Rack appears accurately drawn, would benefit by plugging jumpers into ports on switches instead of bare metal and arranging callouts so they don’t cross the jumpers. Floorplan is also accurate and nicely detailed, would benefit by running bundles inside premises, down the hallway, and not outside the building. Also, another shape for the jumpers between Telecomm jacks and equipment on desks would better show off the detail of VOIP and PC connections. Jacks are missing in the printer area. Shiny paper for both diagrams would look good in a printed portfolio with some practice. Reasonable bill of details might have SuperPEO purchase kinda high, has requested summaries. 17 15 Class’ code was tweaked, kept it valid, good demo of semantic markup 10 Good brief, confirms what I know, good refs 100.5 90.5 A
33337 15.5 3 11.5 2.5 20 Nicely detailed floorplan loses some bundles in the walls, drops more likely pulled down the hallway than the side walls. Using another shape for the jumpers on the desks would highlight the details of VOIP phone and PC connections. The rack appears accurately labeled and jumpered, would be more clear if DMZ jumpers were pulled off the fronts of the servers. Also, jumpers would be better plugged into the ports on the switch rather than the bare metal on the side. Purchasing docs are good-looking and include requested summaries, SuperPEO might be inflated. Some practice and using VisioCafe shapes would make better-looking exhibit for a portfolio since you’re good at this. 19.5 12 Broke class’ sample code, doesn’t validate, isn’t mobile-friendly, not a convincing demo of semantic markup in brief 10 Thanks for twisting smartphones and mobile-friendly together, your refs and take on this is appreciated. The history could have been skipped, expand on those last paragraphs. 94 84.7 B
36188 14.5 2 8.5 2 18 Aggh! Recurring costs have purchase price for SuperPEO plus maintenance, inflates this maybe 300% Otherwise reasonable bill of details has requested summaries. Floorplan doesn’t use curved shapes for drops as spec’d, and the bundles are pulled outside the premises. Telecomm shapes are used, but many are drawn on the desks and chairs and not in the wall as they’d be installed and some are placed where jumpers need to be pulled across the room or along the baseboard. The rack diagram appears accurately labelled and jumpered, would benefit from smooth curves for jumpers and pulling them off the fronts of the equipment and rack. The rack shape is way distorted which detracts from a pro look. 14.5 14 OK use of W3CSS but doesn’t validate, is mobile-friendly, got other specs and is an attractive site 10 Thanks for your take on this, gathering random facts is appreciated, confirms what I know 83.5 75.2 C
39927 19.75 3 15.5 3 20 The rack appears accurately labeled and jumpered and uses VisioCafe shapes. Please consider some more practice with this, maybe do front/rear views instead of mounting some of the servers backwards and scattering the servers around the sides of the rack. The floorplan appears accurate, printed copy is fuzzy, should aim for sharp. Purchase orders are overall reasonable, tapes are way too expensive. Attempt to show recurring/maintenance costs next to purchase costs is a good idea, would be better if another column was added and they were all detailed the same way. Has the requested summaries. 15.5 13 Tweaked at class’ sample, introduced validation errors and UniCode 10 Thanks for confirming what I know and collecting current market facts, these techs have been dancing around the price point for a couple years 99.75 89.9 A
40199 16.25 0 16 0 13 Floorplan rejected advice to use curved shapes for network drops, has left big arrow-heads on some drops that further detract from a pro look, not enough drops for printers, overall effect is sloppy. The rack also doesn’t use curved connectors and has numerous crossed lines where none are needed. Jumpers are attached to the rack’s rails making it difficult to figure out the DMZ that should be clearly demo’d. Columns on purchase orders and summaries are not wide enough to show totals, have ###### instead. Up-front summary has pencil marks and has nonsense total, is useless as printed. 11.5 12 Broken links, lots of UniCode, barely tweaked at class’ sample code, didn’t set permissions, OK on semantic markup 10 It’s good to see Important Numbers highlighted and current charts and graphs about top tech 78.75 70.9 C
41656 18 3 19 3 20 Summaries are big and up front as requested, bill of details scans well, anything could be discussed, quickly patched. Drawings are nicely detailed, very clear. Please draw other stuff, practice with it, put it in your portfolio. Early, enthusiastic project is appreciated. 20 15 Bootstrap’s used well, site’s mobile-friendly, responsive, validates, demos semantic markup 10 Thanks for juxtaposing UTM with Google Analytics! Is really good for me to see. 108 97.3 A
47576 19 3 22 3 20 A splendid pigtail of drops might be more appropriately shown on the rear view of the rack, leaving the front for the jumpers up there. Floorplan is accurately drawn with desktops detailed, might be improved by making the bundle 2 or 3 times thicker. Romp through Dell and other sites was nicely captured and summarized as requested. Maybe should revist the tape carts, but purchasing docs are well done. 18 15 Adapted sample site, kept it valid and mobile-friendly, demo’s semantic markup 12 This is the best I get to see about this most popular topic, thanks so much for putting it together 112 100.9 A
49737 14 3 12.25 2.5 14 Floorplan uses right angles for drops so they blend into the walls, doesn’t use Telecomm jack as spec’d and extra arrowheads further detract from a more pro look. DSL/WAP is shown connected to the server closet where specs state it should not. Numerous crossed lines where none are needed. IP assignments on the rack are ambiguous, didn’t point callouts directly to ethernet ports as requested, didn’t use curved jumpers as spec’d. Keyboard is shown at about shoulder level, less than useful. Bill of details is not summarized, not up-front, and no recurring costs. 15.5 12 Not mobile-friendly, but does validate, no demo of semantic markup, is kinda anti-semantic. Introduced UniCode 11 This happened to follow another on the same topic and yours is useful, has more current charts and graphs 84.25 75.9 C
59029 8.5 3 19.5 3 20 Reasonable bill of details with requested summaries. Rack and floorplan are very clear as drawn. Rack might be more polished if callouts for IP assignments were arranged so they don’t obfuscate the jumpers, maybe remove the boxes and pull them up an inch out of the way. Front/Rear view with VisioCafe shapes is used to good advantage. 18.5 12 Lots of validation errors, structural elements are out of whack. Missed spec for constrained, centered container, lets content spill across a wide open browser, isn’t mobile-friendly 7 Sorry you didn’t regale me with the marked-up original refs on this, but the brief was appreciated, was good to see these two techs and their markets juxtaposed. 91.5 82.4 B
59111 18.5 1 13 3 17 Floorplan is accurately drawn, rejects advice to use curved shapes for drops but they’re shown boldly. Consider using another connector shape for the jumpers between the wall and the jacks. IP assignments are neatly drawn. The rack appears accurately labelled and jumpered, appears cluttered with crossing lines and jumpers drawn over the VisioCafe shapes. Might want to consider adding VisioCafe shapes for the ‘generic’ shapes used for switches and tapes, and put some effort toward front/read views to make a better show. Doesn’t have separate purchase orders per supplier or subtotals, has purchased DAT tapes for LTO drives. Might want to practice for a more clear, polished look for a portfolio piece. 18.5 13 Tweaked at class’ sample OK, demo’s semantic markup, introduced validation errors and UniCode 10 Highlighted an interesting random lot of facts about popular topic, I look forward to seeing it in HTML 94 84.7 B
60796 20 3 22 3 18
14 11 Simply styled site scores as mobile-friendly, but has numerous validation errors, doesn’t demo semantic markup, imported UniCode 11 This is a rich set of refs and excellent brief, is very useful to define the peak of this curve 102 91.9 A
64042 10 2 5 1 20 Floorplan and rack are nicely detailed. The rack’s jumpers are hard to discern, would be better a little more bold and maybe placed off the fronts of the servers on the front view to emphasize the DMZ, also avoid crossing callouts and drops, and use curvy shapes for jumpers between LAN switch and patch panel. This is a good start on a fron/rear view that would be valuable in a portfolio. A reasonable bill of details has requested summaries. 10.5 13 Mobile-friendly with very lightweight css but doesn’t validate and abuses h tags, only uses h1 10 This is all helpful for me to see, isn’t complete without C#, btw 71.5 64.4 D
65843 13.5 0 13.5 0 18 Found late submit… Misses the spec for curved drops, and the suggestion that bundles and drops that are ‘pig tailed’ off them should be the same color and shape, wispy, square-edged drops are barely discernable as drops, lots of crossed lines where none are necessary, rack appears accurately drawn, and reasonable purchasing docs are summarized as requested. Effort to show desktops jumpered appropriately is appreciated. 12.5 1 Nothing there but empty page 0
58.5 52.7 F
70164 13 3 16.5 2 16 Rack diagram doesn’t use curved shapes for jumpers as spec’d and has lots of crossed lines where none are needed. Callouts for IP assignments don’t point directly to the ports as requested. The hand sketch is nicely done, should strive to cross no lines. The small printout of the floorplan isn’t useful. The floorplan, ameks doesn’t have curved shapes for the drops as sec’d and pulls the bundle outside the building or in the neighbor’s premises, doesn’t place the Telecomm jacks on the wall, has most of them pulled across the floor or along the baseboard, makes an overall sloppy appearance, doesn’t have all the printers. Reasonable bill of details has requested summaries. Practice and try for a cleaner, clearer look for your portfolio. 13 13 Numerous validation errors, but checks as mobile-friendly, abuses h tags, doesn’t demo semantic markup, contents overflow cards 10 Thanks for getting together refs and brief on the basics of this crucial tech. 86.5 77.9 C
74577 18.5 3 11 0 15 Late and lost 19 1 Nothing there to grade 10 Why doesn’t everybody mention Baidu? Net market share stated plainly with some marked up facts 77.5 69.8 C
78153 20 2 22 2.5 20 Simple, clear, has it all. Might practice for more polished look without extra kinks in drops, maybe a thicker bundle that drops peel off of. 21.5 15 Used class’ demo OK, kept it valid and mobile-friendly, has semantic markup 10 Gathers lots of important acromyns and definitions into two pages, refs are good to see 113 101.8 A
81765 13 3 20.5 1 20 Floorplan appears accurately drawn, might be improved by making the drops thinner where they peel off a thicker bundle, is useful as drawn. The rack appears accurately labelled and jumpered. A thrid ethernet switch is placed instead of the KVM switch which isn’t accurate. The KVM is probably included in the keyboard drawer, which is placed way high on the rack, so wouldn’t need to be shown separately in the drawing. A reasonable bill of details has the requested summaries. UPS is uninterruptable, not uninterpretable… 21 0 Nothing there? 12 This is the best I get to see about this popular topic, reflects an understanding of the tech involved and respect for the specs. 90.5 81.5 B
85548 1 0
0 0





1 0.9 F
88817 15.5 3 16.5 2 17 Nicely detailed floorplan is useful as drawn, shows individual drops bundled together. The rack is very clear, jumpers would be more pro-looking without extra kinks and pulled away from the rails of the rack, is otherwise the schmatic front-view is carefully drawn and accurately labelled. Reasonable bill of details doesn’t have purchase order per supplier and summaries don’t provide totals so the project is difficult to compare to others. 10 10 Not mobile-friendly, not valid, doesn’t meet spec for centered constrained container, abuses h tags, doesn’t demo semantic markup, lots of UniCode 5 Simple brief on the basics of this market, but entirely blew off the requirement for marked-up references 79 71.2 C
90266 19 3 19.25 3 19 Floorplan is useful and appears accurate as drawn. The two pages of legends/shapes doesn’t add to a pro look, IMHO. The rack diagram doesn’t use the requested curved shapes for jumpers and has lots of crossed lines. The patch panel is oddly placed, would result in jumpers being pulled over/around the tape drives, the keyboard is at about shoulder height, wouldn’t be comfortable to use. Obvious care was taken to clearly label and route jumpers but the overall effect is somewhat sloppy, practice towards a simpler, cleaner style would result in better-looking piece for a portfolio. Reasonable bill of details has requested summaries 20 12 Not mobile-friendly, not styled at all, missed spec for centered constrained container, OK demo of semantic markup, doesn’t validate 10 Survey of this tech is appreciated, wiki isn’t needed but the other refs are good to see 105.25 94.8 A
90340 20 3 22 3 14 The requirement for a separate purchase order per supplier was not met, and the LAN Project Costs Form doesn’t identify suppliers, nor does it include the spec’d/customary columns for quantity, each, and extended, only shows quantity and total. The bill of details reflects some consideration and appear accurate. The rack diagram strays from the specs and sketches provided for the project and doesn’t show the jumpers as spec’d and in the sample drawings. The floorplan is neatly drawn but does not resemble the sketch provided where an accurate tracing was demo’d and required in the specs. 16 12 Used simplest example for responsiveness, but doesn’t make it mobile-friendly, has numerous validation errors, does demo semantic markup 5 The brief is appreciated since it reflects your experience in the field with this kind of tech. But the requirement for marked-up original references was entirely blown off. 95 85.6 B
90470 18 2 19.5 1.5 19.5 Fine work, all very clear and appears accurate. The rack diagram might benefit by tweaking jumpers to pull them off the fronts of the servers, emphasizing the DMZ.. The one with the blue face is very clear but isn’t something I’d put in a portfolio, both rack diagrams are missing jumper from DMZ to the secured switch... 16.5 11 Abuses semantic markup, numerous validation errors, broke the responsive features of the class’ sample. Permissions unset and imported UniCode 10 Thanks for grabbing stuff from Forbes and other excellent refs about this aspect of the cloud, legacy providers who can do it are prospering, is the best model 98 88.3 B
91736 9.5 3 15.5 2.5 16
8 13 Adapted class’s sample, introduced a few validation errors, demo’s semantic markup. Imported UniCode. 10 Thanks for introducing me to a consensual hallucination, is a very brief brief on this tech with entertaining facts, I can’t operate a drone without it. 77.5 69.8 C
96835 19 3 16.5 3 18 Purchasing docs and summaries make a very pro-looking package. Rack appears accurately jumpered but the IP assignments are distorted and can’t be read. Keyboard is placed at about chin level so isn’t usable as drawn. The floorplan appears accurate as drawn, is useful. 12 14 Quickly tweaked class’ sample code, introduced a couple of validation errors, otherwise OK 10 This isn’t exactly what I asked for but is an enthusiastic response and the refs are appreciated 95.5 86.0 B
98419 18.5 3 14.5 3 20 Rack appears accurately drawn and jumpered, would be improved by pulling jumpers for the DMZ off the front of the servers so they’re more clear and losing the dotted lines around the callout boxes, aligning labels with one-another, and plugging jumpers into the ethernet ports and not the bare metal of the switches. Practice and using VisioCafe for front/back view would make excellent piece for portfolio, details like jumpers between switch and patch panel are appreciated. Floorplan is usable as drawn. Thicker shape for the bundle would help it look better, as would consistent size and placement of the Telecomm jacks. Practice for a clearer, less cluttered look would help a portfolio. Purchase orders appear sloppy, would be improved by using a consistent size and style for text, dozen different sizes/styles detract from a pro look. The total is inflated maybe 100% relative to some others. Has separate purchase orders and requested summaries. 13 13 Used class’ demo site but introduced lots of validation errors, doesn’t demo semantic markup no outline laid into brief only uses h1 tags 10 Thanks you for digging at this popular topic, marked-up refs are a collage of what I need to see, and your brief is appreciated 95 85.6 B