Project Points and Critique:

Points: 48 20
5
3
10
10

Last 5 of V# Project Points LAN Critique HOL 1 Critique HOL 2 Critique HOL 3 Critique Refs & Brief
Extra Points for Server
01531 38 20 Rings true quickly, might be polished a bit by not connecting jumpers on the rack to the bolts at the side of the servers. 5
3
10 Fine refit of class' sample site, validates, MF, responsive, demo's semantic markup 11 This is a rich, very current, set of market facts for this popular tech, best I get to see. 0
01774 33.5 14 Late. Rack is not legible as printed, ip assignments are ambiguous, missed spec for curved corners on drops and jumpers, lots of crossed lines where none are necessary., might benefit from using dashed, tilted lines on callouts to cut down on clutter. Floorplan is not accurately traced as required, misses lots of telecomm jacks. there are no separate purchas orders, one for each vendor, as required. 1 Logs filled with nonsense 0.5 History is a mess, can’t get upper/lower case straight, has Brief1 but it is not formatted properly. 8 Mobile-friendly site should be tweaked to be mobile-first, numerous validation errors. Coverage of market for subject tech is appreciated. 10 Thank you for this, favorite quote 'using python for this is like hammering a screw', I hope you took it to heart. Structures scale, objects no so much 0
01883 47.5 19.5 Low bid, refurb servers and 8 hdd, has requested summaries, carts are assembled neatly and thoughtfully. Floorplan is clear, can only snipe that the jumper between the phone and the PC is missing, and missed spec for curved corners on drop and jumpers. Fron/t/back of rack should be revisited to pull the jumpers _between_ the racks rather than backwards switches as drawn, check out the clearest example posted with the assignment, get more or all VisioCafe shapes next time... 5
3
10 Adapted class' sample code, kept it valid and mobile-friendly 10 Thanks for sheaf of refs, is good to see, am still looking for Linux on personal computers, confirms it dominates super compters 0
02176 47.5 20 Clear, useful diagrams, reasonable bill of details, summarized as spec'd. 5
3
9.5 Excellent adaptation of framework popular in that part of the classroom, does it all but has validation errors and is accurately flagged with in-line styles, should all be handled in css. 10 Inflated list of references, shrunk the original refs, did provide valuable stuff to see, another juxtaposition of SaaS and ERP helps set this in my head 0
02560 47 19 Rack uses front/back view appropriately, might be improved by using consistently curved jumpers, not ‘swoopy’ as drawn, but it does very clearly demo the DMZ. Floorplan misses spec for curved drops, and several are missing. Purchasing docs clearly presented and summarized as requested. 5
3
10 Does it all, thanks... 10 Thank you for gathering these references, where what I asked to see jumps out at me about this security-related topic 0
02602 47.5 20 Exceptionally clear diagrams and documents. The only thing that jumps from the page are the jumpers drawn approprately accross the space between front/rear views should be revisited, scheming to cross no lines. Another romp through VisioCafe to find front/rear of switches and patch panel would make this nearly photo-realistic. 5
3
9.5 Good-looking site, nav isn't convenient on a phone and sets off error on google's mobile friendly test, need to revisit nav and style it for thumbs on nav, got all otherwise. 10 Thanks for sheaf or refs, is flipped into the useful heap 0
03058 23 14 Late. Floorplan is not an accurate tracing of the plan provided, puts drops directly on desks and not telecomm jacks as specified, misses spec for curved corners on drops, is printed too small to be legible. The rack may be an accurate schmatic, some jumpers on the DMZ/proxy are ambiguous. SuperPEO PO isn't accurately calculated. Some POs have wild choices, package is neatly prepared, could be corrected in a meeting. 'Cost Summary' doesn't have a line per supplier as requested and is missing SuperPEO from the total. There is an extra page with the floorplan, still not legible. 0 No File1, 2, or 3. Avoided using vi, no credit for echoing doo doo into misnamed files 0 Nothing for Part #2 0 Left a mess 9 Nothing about the market, does address security issues with this tech 0
03254 45.5 17.5 Purchasing docs are neatly prepared, would be easy to correct after a meeting. Each is different, with a different logo, but these should all be on Phantom Resources forms. The tapes are way expensive, DAT should be more like $12 each than $125. The rack diagram is accurately drawn and labelled but could be improved by connecting the jumpers to ethernet ports and not to the bolts on the rack-mounted equipment or to bare metal on switches that have unused ethernet ports. The keyboard drawer is way high on the rack. The floor plan misses the spec for curved drops, as drawn it’s hard to tell the difference between drops and walls, and it looks like a co-ax installation since there’s no attempt to show separate wires or connect them to the Telecomm outlet symbols and most jumpers would need to be pulled across the room or along the baseboards, not as spec’d. The printer area and work table are short several jacks. 5
3
10 Bold, mobile-first design, validates, content is dead on topic. 10 Thanks for the brief and for the references you dug up, could wish for newer than 2015 in this fast-changing market but you found useful stuff 0
04052 41.5 19.5 Jumpers on Rack Parts stand out as way expensive, should be more like a couple bucks than nearly $20 each. Grand total mixes up-front with recurring costs, should probably be labelled ‘First Year Costs’. There are separate purhase orders but none really identifies the vendor. Overall the purchasing docs are neatly prepared and could be patched quickly following a meeting.The floorplan appears accurately drawn. The premises wiring is kinda sloppy compared to most I see, but does look like some people would do the job, it could be made more clear by using a thicker connector labeled CAT6 Bundle to make it more easily identifiable, as drawn it could be co-ax wiring. The rack is accurately drawn, may be a bit sloppy in appearance, would be improved by turning off the ‘U numbers’ and moving the callouts for the IP assignments to the left side of the rack so there are not any crossed lines. 5
0 Nothing for Part #2 7 Numerous validaation errors and spec violations. Does score as mobile-friendly, good use of framework. Topic is on-target about important market. 10 Exactly what I like to see, thanks, I'm briefed on a major use of bandwidth 0
04877 43 20 Fine job, easy to score 5
0 Nothing for Part #2 8 Good-looking site, left permission and validation errors, is mobile-friendly, easy on the eyes. Consider using more paragraphs to avoid 'wall of text' appearance. 10 Rich highlighted refs update me on this critical market tech, where I tread in the backwaters, will be broaching AWS sooner or later. 0
04910 48 20 Has done a good job with purchasing docs, got on-line orders captured nicely, is missing Pos for items not purchased on-line. Floorplan has drops with very small radius for the bends so they blend into the walls, wouldn’t show up in a fax, is otherwise neatly and accurately drawn. Rack uses front/rear views appropriately, might be improved by using consistently curvy jumpers, swoopy jumpers as drawn have some kinks. 5
3
10 Early work on good-looing site is apprecaited. Validates, is mobile-friendly, topic is on-target, excellent graphs for an important tech. 10 Found what I needed to see and highlighted it with a neon blue marker. 0
06021 33 12 Was with late work with note 'submitted email on-time'. The rack appears accurately jumpered and labelled, is hard to see where jumpers attach to ports on the DMZ. The floorplan is not accurately traced and doesn't resemble the premises. Missed specs for telecomm jacks and curved wires on drops, doesn't depict an accurate wiring scheme for CAT6. Purchasing docs do not provide a PO per supplier as required, are sloppily presented, spanning across pages and columns that don't fit the text. Doesn't provide the requested summaries. 1 Waited til last minute then made a mess 0 Nothing for Part #2 10 Simple responsive design, validates and is mobile-friendly 10 Thanks for sheaf of current info on this important tech, is good primer 0
07167 27 17 Late. Purchasing docs are neatly presented, but summaryies were hard to find, are postage-stamp-sized where they'd be better shown on a full page. The shape of the premises is distorted as printed, is not the close tracing requested, and misses the spec for curved corners on drops. The bundle of CAT6 should be drawn thicker and labelled as a bundle. The rack reflects some work, but is sloppy as drawn, lots of crossed jumpers and ambiguous ip assignments on jumpers and not on ethernet ports as spec'd. Front/rear view was started but not done well . Consider the clearest of the examples posted with the assignments, which has the jumpers pulled across the space between the jumpers so equipment isn't placed backwards. 1 Has lots of UniCode, clumbsy paste into vi while in single-key command mode, disregarded instruction to key in 3 paragraphs 0 Nothing for Part #2 4 Validation errors, abuses h-tags in semantic markup, no css at all, no centered, constrained container for ontent which splats across the page, not responsive at all. 5 Paperwork showed up after pdf was emailed so is not counted so late, is missing marked up original refs but is a fine brief. No paperwork here, scored from website without marked up refs, LMK if something's been misplaced 0
07370 7.5 0
5
2.5 UniCode 0
0
0
09594 24 0 This is not acceptable, has $568,000+ is more than ten times too high! Please patch it and resubmit. The shopping carts are not well-presented, have tower servers where rack-mounted are required, wild choices for switches &c. It's a sloppy floorplan and doesn't use the required TeleComm shape, terminates on the desks and not in the wall as spec'd. The rack diagram is a mess of crossed lines where none are needed, makes ambiguous labels for IP addresses. 5
3
8 Adapted class' sample code, made it invalid, should revisit responsiveness, leaves content 30 chars wide on a smartphone 8 Refs are sparse and don't address market 0
10586 21 14 Way late. Purchasing docs have some wild choices, are neatly prepared and summarized, could be patched in a meeting. Floorplan isn't an accurate tracing of the plan provided, and misses spec for curved corners on drops, would be improved by showing the bundle as a thicker line and labelling it, is not a good representation of CAT6 wiring as drawn, mises drops in the printer area. The rack is accurately jumpered and cabled, should have been left as a schmatic, front view is not used at all. Consider redoing it with VisioCafe shapes and a front/rear view that pulls jumpers across the space between the views, like the clearest of the examples posted. 5
0 Nothing for Part #2 2 Nothing there to score but a placeholder 0 Nothing here or under door. 0
10654 42.5 13 Late submit, is neatly assembled, shows some good details, but none of it is complete. Purchasing docs aren't detailed at all, summaries are neatly faked but are no where near close. Floorplan misses lots of jacks, has no drops represented, are drawn backwards. The rack diagram avoids using the rack symbol from Visio or a particular one from VisioCafe, so racked equipment is floating in space. It appears to be jumpered appropriately, but it hard to read because callouts use the same shape as the jumpers do, and equipment labels are misaligned. 5
0 Nothing for Part #2 9.5 Good looking site in a full-sized browser, it doesn't respond well to shrinking and isn't mobile-first or friendly, also got validation errors at W3C. A point was added back for exceptionally clear demo of semantic markup. I'd suggest designing for mobile first, then tweak for bigger browsers. 10 Thanks for raiding the trade rags for a good take on this popular tech issue, is good to see 5
10805 40 18 Late, under door. Purchasing docs are clear, elegant, drawings are sloppy compared to most I see, but appear accurately drawn, missed specs for curved corners on drops and jumpers. Not valuable for a portfolio of technical projects. 5
0 Nothing for Part #2 7 Not valid, not mobile-friendly, missed spec for constrained centered container for content 10 Thanks for primer on this market, helps me keep it straight 0
11390 39.5 19 The floorplan has telecomm jacks sized so small they’re not visible in the printed copy, and there are crossed lines where none are required. The premises wiring would benefit from having a thicker connector labeled ‘bundle of CAT6’, as drawn it doesn’t resemble CAT6. The rack appears accurately drawn and labelled, but is somewhat sloppy compared to others, would benefit from rearranging jumpers, callouts, and component labels so there aren’t any crossed lines. Purchasing docs miss the ‘big lazer printer with 11X17 and bindery’, show way over-priced jumpers and tapes, short a tape drive. It is a nicely prepared package, would be easy to correct after a meeting about the details. 2 Unicode left after attempts to clean-file 3
6 Pages aren't consistenly styled. Numerous validation errors. Scores as mobile-friendly but can't be used on a smartphone without stretching and sliding. Doesn't address market or shares of subject techs. Content on back pages splats across browser, missed spec for centered, constrained container. 9.5 I appreciate the digitally curated and marked up references, but they don't tell me much about the share of the market for any of these languages, not as useful as others in this heap. 0
11929 29 17 Floorplan distorts the shape of the office and is printed very small, not quite useful, squared turns on the drops make them resemble walls, didn’t use curved turns as demo’d and spec’d, placement of most jacks has jumpers running across the office or along the baseboard. The rack diagram may be accurately drawn and labelled, is printed very small, has lots of crossed lines. Jumpers from Tiger Direct are way overpriced, are not CAT6, and other details could be easily patched after a meeting, purchasing docs and summaries are neatly prepared. 5
3
4 Numerous spec violations left unfixed, not valid, not mobile-friendly, nav is way too small and close together to use on a smartphone 4 No paperwork here with timely submits or under door? Scored as from website, less marked up refs. LMK if something's been missed. 0
12529 45 18 Ouch, DAT160 tapes are waaay overpriced, should be more like $11 than $110 each. What are two Core I7 CPUs used for? Purchasing docs would be easy to patch after a meeting. Floorplan is accurately drawn but appears very sloppy with kinky wires, although that’s the way some would install them, making the ‘bundle’ thicker and labelling it woud make it look more like CAT6 premises wiring. The rack appears accurately drawn but doesn’t show the IP assignments as requested, keyboard tray is at about knee level. Drawings need polishing to be valuable in a portfolio. 5
2 What’s in Brief1 is not an outline, other explorations appreciated 10 Good job with framework, responsive features, validates and is mobile-friendly. Misses constrained container, but wide padding keeps text easily readable. 10 Thanks for collecting this sheaf of what's important to you of this critical tech. 0
13849 47.5 19.5 Application software is way inflated cost, CAT6 bundle has square corners, looks like walls, and should be the same color as the drops – red is usually used to indacate something wrong. Diagrams are very clear otherwise. Purchasing docs are clear. 5
3
10 Among the best I get to see, mobile-friently, validdates, good-looking site 10 Thanks for curating these market facts, all very useful, exactly what was requested, is appreciated 0
13994 43.5 18 Lost, feedback in email 5
2.5 Started outline on 2nd line 8 Broke aside in sample code, left it invalid 10
0
14416 47.5 19.5 Misplaced project is easy to score, has a lot of detail. Drops could be improved by showing a bundle of Cat6 wire down the hallway with drops peeling off it, they're lost on top of the wall as drawn, fraction docked for missing curved shape spec for drops and jumpers 5
3
10 Might revisit responsiveness, fold to tablet sooner, text bcrashes into nav 10 Rich sheaf of refs is filpped into heap for revisit 0
15870 25 0 Recurring expenses don't include the big expense for SuperPEO and hot-site or T-3s. Purchases include some that are obiously made-up, and the docs aren't specific enough for me to check. The floorplan doesn't resembled the sketch provided, where the specs ask for it to be accurately traced. The rack has none of the interfaces labeled with IP assignments, is missing equipment and jumpers. The project is not acceptable as presented. 5
3
7 Missed spec for constrained content, not valid, not MF 10 Found a good article on this market currently 0
18186 0



0
0
0
0
18585 36 19 Drops in floorplan have square corners against specs, bundle is the same size as drops to jacks, would be more clearly CAT6 premises wiring if it was larger and labeled ‘bundle of CAT6’. Rack is accurately drawn. Some details are questionable, but the purchasing docs are overall very clear and would be easy to fix after a meeting. 3 UniCode 3
6 Not mobile-friendly, doesn't validate, no centered, constrained container for content. 5 Blew off request for highlighted original refs, gave me a list of references needlessly highlighted. The brief does go straight to market facts but the last brief on this popular topic provided me with a rich set of marked-up references. 0
19446 26

5
3
8 Simple demo of responsiveness, left it invalid 10 Thanks for putting a $ on top of this market, charts good to see 0
19808 33 14 Way late. Floorplan doesn't resembe the sketch provided, misses spec for curved corners on drops, work on it is appreciated. The rack appears accurately drawn, isn't a polished and pro looking as some. Purchasing docs are neatly prepared, have some wild choice that could be patched in a meeting, have the summaries requested. 3 UniCode 3
8 Not mobile-friendly, has validation error, OK use of bootstrap but resulted in non-mobile-friendly site. Content is on topic. 5 No highlighted refs, OK brief on the market, but another one on this popular topic has charts, graphs, and a great set of marked-up refs. 0
21511 18 13 Way late. Many items are missing from the purchasing docs, SuperPEO is way understated, no summary of purchases so it's hard to evaluate the package. The floorplan shows a lot of work, represents each drop, misses spec for curved corners on drops. The rack may be accurately drawn and cabled, but free-hand curves for the jumpers detract from an overall pro look, has phone jumpered to the rack like a KSU where VOIP is what's in the memo, gateway jumper plugs into the floor, not into the DMZ as it should be, IP assignments are ambiguous, should label the ethernet jacks. 5
0 Nothing for Part #2 0


0
21513 37 14 Rescored. Not acceptable: Purchasing docs don’t fit on the printed pages and don’t specify the vendor, floorplan waaay distorts the office space and doesn’t use the curved drops demo’d and spec’d. The rack is drawn maybe 15 feet tall, doesn’t use curved jumpers as spec’d and has ambiguous labeling for the ip addresses, has many crossed lines where none are needed. 5
3
10 Good demo of simple, responsive site, validates, scores as mobile-friendly, good demo of semantic markup is appreciated. 5 Blew off requirment for highlighted refs. Brief is OK history and mentions who shares the market for this tech. I spent 6 weeks at DEC, was pleased to be reminded of this stuff. 0
22406 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
22755 47.5 20 Easy to score, would only suggest revisiting the rack to eliminate crossing lines on callouts and jumpers. Also, the plain schematic with genric shapes is clearly drawn, but will be compared with highly detailed front/back views if used in a portfolio... 5
3
9.5 Amost valid, does it all, would suggest styling papargraphs' left margin rather than padding them with nbsp chars to get good looking site. 10 Thanks muchly for this which will inform my opinion on this key topic, scathing review of Office 365 is noted, rich set of refs is appreciated 0
23971 41 19 Floorplan is accurately drawn but would be more valuable if each drop was represented separately instead of the impossible thin-lined way it's drawn, isa useful diagram for installers but is not the pro look of some I see. The rack is accurately drawn and makes good use of the front/rear diagram, but has several jumpers drawn crossed where none need to cross, detracts from a more pro appearance, as does the secure switch, which is mounted backwards in one of the racks, making the page portrait would allow more room for making things bigger... 1 Got nothing done but log in and password changed 3
8 Missed spec for cetnered, constrained contaner for content, has validatin errors, should revisit for mobile-first, improve nav for thumbs. 10 Found same stuff as others, covered it well 0
24681 41.5 19 Floorplan is short drops for the work table, drawing is overall very clear and to specs, would be easy to fix. Rack doesn’t label ethernet ports directly as spec’d, leaves DMZ somewhat ambiguous with clear jumpering. Purchasing docs are overall clear, has wild choice for jumpers at $45 each where they should be a couple dollars. Application software is left off the up-front purchase summary. 4 UniCode 3
6 Numerous validaton errors, sloppy with invalid tags visible, not mobile-friendly, misses specs including constrained, centered content. Os off-topic, all about tech, nothing about market size or share of manufacturers in it. 9.5 Thanks so much for rich set of references about this tech, is helpful to see, had to dock for lack of market share facts relative to others on this topic. 0
27644 44 18 Floorplan is accurately traced and finely detailed, is a treat to see following some that weren't. The rack diagram may be accurately jumpered, but it is a jumbled, sloppy looking drawing with lots of crossed lines where none are necessary, isn't valuable for a portfolio as drawn. I can't compare it with others easily as there is no summary of up-front purchases as requested. Please practice with the tools, maybe use VisioCafe shapes and front/rear of rack, more like the clearest of the samples posted with the assignment and less like the boss' sketch. 3 Late start, then used vi on files required to be edited with vi 3
10 Quick adaptation of class' sample code, kept it valid and MF 10 Good refs about critical tech market 0
28176 36 18 Some wild choices for jumpers, no Co-ax needed, missed spec for curved connectors for drops and jumpers, and doesn’t label ethernet ports directly on the rack, leaves the DMZ ambiguous. Overall clearly done, could easily be corrected. 5
3
10 Very brief, to the point, summarizes market. Clean refit of class' sample is appreciated, valid and mobile-friendly. 5 No highlighted refs, inflated reference list, Good brief otherwise found a concise history of the market an trends. 0
29210 48 20 Fixed on resubmit, gave back all points in appreciation of effort, however misguided, on original. Not acceptable, doesn’t have separate purchase order per vendor as required, they’re identified in a column against spec’d advice. Floorplan takes care to show each drop, but uses square corners on drops where curves are spec’d, and has lots of crossed lines. Rack attempts fonrt/back views and high level of detail but doesn’t pull jumpers beteween the views and is very hard to interpret. Close attention to detail here is appreciated, but this needs rework to be valuable in a portfolio. 5
3
10 Stylish, mobile-friendly, responsive, validates, demos semantic markup and explains it the best. Note: for some reason the hamburger and header disappear with DeLuminate, which I use to reverse contrast to avoid bleaching my retinae, site's muted contrast is easy on the eyes... 10 Sorry, I klutzed original feedback, don't have original ref handy right now, recollect the best along with LAN resubmit. 0
35067 10

0
0
0
10 Refs are spiked with charts and graphs that help set this stuff into my head, need to get more working in Python 0
35244 52 19.5 Floorplan is somewhat distorted and borders on being printed too small to be useful, misses specs for curved corners on drops, but overall is very well done. CAT6 wiring would benefit from showing the drops peeling separately off the bundle rather than in foks of two or more, to more closely resemble the shape of the LAN. The rack is clearly drawn, should be revisited to eliminate crossed lines where labels fight with jumpers, also pulling jumpers away from the rack to avoid clutter of the servers' faces would help. No need to show power connections, but if you do make them look different than network jumpers and/or label them. The purchasing documents and summaries are neatly done, any errors could be fixed quickly after a meeting. 5
3
9.5 This really pops out in Deluminate, the accessability addon I use, also works with normal contrast. It has several validation errors, got all other specs. 10 Thanks for your take on this 5
36014 38 14 Late 2 days. Floorplan isn't neatly drawn has broken, missing, extra wall segments. Is not using required telecomm jack symbol, is using 110Volt symbol instead, not drops shown, premeises walls are not traced accurately. Schematic view of rack is mostly accurate, has crossed lines where none are necessary, termination of jumpers is on bare metal, not at labelled spot. Purchasing documents are well-assembled, errors would be easy to correct after a meeting. 3 UniCode 3
8 Not mobile-friendly, not valid, cleared spec errors ok. Content is right on topic. 10 Thanks for finding useful, authoritative stuff on this popular topic, makes it easier for me to dock points from those who didn't provide marekd-up refs. 0
36957 48 20 Thoughtful summary of up-front costs included a line for 12% maintenance, which is not appropriate. Also, the summary would be more useful if there was a total for each supplier rather than repeating all the details from the purchase orders. The floorplan is finely detailed got all specs, would be improved by labelling the long connector that represents the bundle as such and making it thicker, to reflect the CAT6 topology better. Front/rear view of the cabinet is exceptionally fine detail and appears accurate, demo's the DMZ. I'd suggest bringing the block of IP labels for the server and secure switch up so the call-out lines don't cross the jumpers, would make this 100% UNcrossed lines... 5
3
10 Got points with simplest demo of responsiveness, valid, mobile-friendly 10 Sampled trade rags, is appreciated, could be more authoritative 0
37610 34.5 19.5 Floorplan is drawn clearly, but puts most ethernet jacks where the jumpers need to be pulled across the room or baseboard, not behind or alongside desks as spec’d. Rack front/rear view is used appropriately and VisioCafe shapes are used well – some ip addresses are shown on the switch rather than the server where they should be, makes it hard to interpret the DMZ firewall, mght want to avoid any crossed lines. Purchasing docs are neatly assembled and have requested summaries, any errant details could be easily patched after a meeting. 5
3
7 Validates, mobile-friendly, left several permission errors and spec violations unfixed. 10 I hope you get some mileage from digging up this shef or refs, it's good for me to see, is in the heap to turn over again, is appreciated. 0
40313 43 18 SuperPEO pricing is way off, should be more like $70K than 15. Has mixed vendors on purchase orders where there should be one PO per vendor -- WeBeWiring, MegaPath, and United Security Vaults get separate checks for example. Maintenance for SuperPEO is way understated on recurring cost summary and it's unclear whether these are monthly or annual costs. 'Bill of Details' is printed too small to be useful and isn't necessary. Floorplan is very neatly and clearly drawn, but misses spec for curved cornets on drops, makes it harder to read. Connectors for the rack look sloppy, should be replaced with bold, smoothly curved lines with a few control points, not the jagged freely drawn lines. Also, pulling the jumpers to the side would demo the DMZ more clearly, as drawn they are lost against the fronts of the servers. 5
3
9 Not pretty with graphics crashing around as it responds, kept it valid, and it scores MF, demo's semantic markup 8 Facts stop at 2012, not very useful, brief is otherwise on-target 0
40694 25 0 Please tweak the floorplan so it's usable as printed, is not acceptable as submitted. Recurring costs include SuperPEO purchase. The floorplan uses square corners on drops where curved was spec'd. and is very difficult to read as printed. The connector representing the bundle should be thicker and labeld as a bundle, is printed too small to be useful but is very nicely drawn and detailed. The rack diagram is not useful as printed it is a jumble of crossed lines although it may be jumpered and labelled accurately I didn't get out a magnifier to see. It has some extravagant choices for equipment, is neatly done and could be corrected after a meeting. The documents are not acceptable as presented. I believe your project could be tweaked a bit to make a good printed copy... 5
2 Lots of Unicode and html in refs 10 Mobile-first front page, valid, responsive, MF 8 Old refs from 2012 aren't important for this market, others got it into 2017 0
44376 41 16 Floorplan is not an accurate tracing of the premises, is nicely detailed, misses spec for curved corners on drops, bundle is not pulled up the hallway as suggested. The rack is a schematic, has lots of crossed jumpers where none are necessary, appears accurately drawn, might be improved by moving callouts to the left and putting them in clear spot left of the rack. Purcashing docs are not as spec'd, don't have a separate PO per supplier. 'Upfont Costs may be presented as the 'summary of up-front costs', instead shows a line for each detail, would be better presented as a list of suppliers with amount due each. Bill of details is costly, needs review... 5
1 Outline isn’t formatted as spec’d, no references 9 Adapted class' samples, isn't very good looking, broke responsiveness on home page. 10 Refs make me think I need to be looking for shifts in this market 0
46691 39 13 Late 2 days. Purchasing docs are neatly assembled, errors would be easy to fix following a meeting. Up-front purchase is way overstated. Floorplan is not a pro look, premises are not accurate traced as required, uses irregular shapes for furnishings, effect is very sloppy, misses drops, runs bundles outside premises. Bundle should be thicker and labelled as a bundle. The rack is a sloppy mess of crossed lines, impossible to see. 3 Files misnamed at due date 3
10 Got points by adapting class' samples 10 Thanks, took care to highliight good market facts about important tech 0
48199 46 19.5 Accurately traced sketch is finely detailed, super clear, has most corners curved on drops, all would be better, also making the bundle of CAT6 thicker and labeling it would make it more clearly CAT5+, is ambiguous as drawn. The rack appears accurately drawn, is very hard to see dark jumpers on dark/busy servers' rears. The diagram fudges the VisioCafe shapes into use by sticking them in the rack backwards. I'd suggest revisiting this, find visiocafe templates for all the components and making fron/back view for a more valuabe piece for your portfolio. Had to dock a fraction for labelling IP assignments on jumpers and not ethernet ports as spec'd. 5
3
8.5 Content not constrained, centered as required, numerous valid spec violations, is valid and front page scores as mobile friedly. Brief doesn't use h tags appropriately to demo semantics, uses deprecated btag instead. 10 Thanks for marking up a good primer on this tech marketplace. 0
50832 42 17 This appears like it might be a good-looking set of purchasing docs, but not as printed. Please get me a printed copy I can use. Reformat your purchase orders so they appear more like the clearest of the samples posted for the project. The floorplan misses the spec for curved corners on drop wires, has one or two curved where they all should be. The DSL isn't installed as in the sketch or memo, where it's pulled up in the plumbing chase in the restroom, intended to go nowhere near the network closet. The rack is very clearly done, more practice, maybe front/back using VisioCafe shapes would be more valuable for your portfolio... 5
3
7 Bold, good looking, might consider taking up less estate on mobile with big red block. Not valid, not mobile-friendly 10 Rich sheaf of stuff about this important tech market 0
51115 0

0
0
0


0
51270 44 18 Late-submitted stuff solves problems. Not acceptable because required summaries of up-front purchases and recurring costs are not provided, otherwise well-prepared purchasing docs have some errors that could be corrected easily, like Bill of Details misses spec for 4 identical servers, one of which is used as the firewall so no Barracuda is needed. $33 for jumpers is way out of range. Very well-done floorplan is carefully traced and represents each drop but misses spec for curved corners on drops so they blend into the walls, are hard to see as drawn, attention to details is appreciated, would be valuable in a portfolio if drops are tweaked into more prominence. Rack diagram is disorted, stretched vertically, but is accurately drawn, useful schematic, would be improved by avoiding all crossed lines 5
3
8 Little tweak to class' sample, left it invalid 10 Found good refs about this tech market, rich, good to see 0
52811 0

0
0
0


0
53964 48 20 Floorplan is accurately traced, would be useful for installers, but is kinda sloppily drawn compared to most I see, is also an obviously quick job and there's some value in that. The Rack diagram is rich, also kinda sloppy, where I'd suggest jumpers be simpler curves with fewer control points and not the swoopy bezier constructions you've experimented with here. The IP labelling for each drop would be better placed on the floorplan, IMHO, patch panels are usually labelled with the Id of the remote jack. Purchase orders should probably be totaled _under_ the column where they're ordinarily found, caused me to search for them. There are some puzzling details, but all is neatly prepared and would be easy to fix after a meeting. 5
3
10 Adaped class sample code OK, kept it valid and mobile-friendly 10 Thanks for current info on tech I need to talk about several times a year 0
54003 0

0
0
0


0
54838 43 17 Reprinted copy fixes problems. Requested summaries are provided with neatly prepared purchase orders. The floorplan appearslike it may be accurately drawn but is not usable as printed with drops nearly invisible, square corners where curves were spec'd, and drops drawn outside the premises, no bundle down the hallway as suggested. Rack is accurately drawn, would be improved by attaching jumpers to ports on the switches and not the bare metal. 5
3
8 Abuses h1 tags, not valid, simple demo of responsive/MF site 10 Found a good article, treated it well 0
55076 40 14 Late, under door. Rack attempts a high level of details,would be improved by making fron/back view with VisioCafe shapes rather than mounting some of them backwards. Jumpers on rack may be accurate but drawing is too cluttered as printed for me to see. Misses specs for 4 identical servers with 1 TByte RAID each. Floorplan misses drops for printers, uses square corners for drops, and runs some outside the premises where specs were to run bundle down the hall. Summaries for purchasing docs are provided, package is not complete, has duplicated purchase orders , is missing equipment for the LAN and rack. 5
3
8 Adaped class' samples OK, not valid, missed spec for left-aligned text 10 Found a few facts on market, is appreciated 0
55532 48 20 Easy to give all points. Moving the CAT6 bundle inside the premises would be an improvement, as drawn they’re outside the building. Black callouts on black rack rails make it hard to see the DMZ although its accurately drawn. 5
3
10 Adapted and simplfied class' demo site, kept it valid and mobile-friendly 10 Really rich set of refs is appreciated, as is fine-looking brief as grab of website, exceeds expecatations, is very useful, thanks... 0
55879 45 19 Summaries have SuperPEO in the wrong place, way overstates recurring costs and understates up-front purchases., otherwise is neatly assembled, would be easy to fix. Floorplan could be improved by thickening the connector representing the bundle down the hallay to make it more obviously CAT6. It it neatly drawn, very clear for its intended use. The rack is neatly assembled using generic components, but annotations and jumpers are very sloppy compared to most I see -- would be more valuable for a portfolio if jumpers were redrawn to look like the clearest of the samples provided, sloppiness mars an otherwise well drawn diagram. Errors in bill of details could be corrected following a meeting. 5
3
8 Quick adaptation of class' sample code, left it invalid 10 Thanks for quick run on this and highlighting good market info 0
55895 29 12 Late two days. Purchasing docs are neatly assembled, any errors could be fixed after a meeting. floorplan is not accurately traced and is way incomplete, shows no drops nor telecomm jacks. The rack is not accurately jumpered, is ambiguously labelled. 0
0 Nothing for Part #2, permissions aren’t set correctly 7 Numerous vaidation errors, scores as mobile-friendly but isn't easy to use on smartphone. Misses overall spec for centered, constrained container for content. Coverage of market for subject tech is excellent. 10 This is rich, exactly what I needed to see, lost 400 FrontPage-generated pages, was stupid, shoulda learned HTML/CSS, too bad about the quizzes and other points., is disressing to see juxtaposed to this. 0
56799 47 19.5 Docked a fraction for missing spec about curved corners on drops and jumpers, otherwise find no fault, is all exceptionally clear and has required summaries for bill of details. Drawing the bundle of CAT6 all inside the premesis would improve it rather than showing them in neighboring space/mid-air... 5
3
9.5 Got all but centered, constrained container for content, excellent packaginging of stuff about this maturing marketplace. 10 Did any of this help land you into the best situation I've heard of this year? Thanks for this, will help writing and talking about this critical tech. 0
58346 32 16 Summary would be better with one line per vendor, and appears to scramble vendors with tape drives coming from Megapath and Embassy suites providing air transportation. Summary of recurring costs totals a monthly column with yearly costs, is hard to read. Has made up items purchased, has no part #s to check. Floorplan doesn’t use curved shapes for drops so the blend into the walls. Desktop jumpering isn’t accurate, specs ask for VOIP phone to be plugged into LAN and PCs plugged into phone, otherwise is very clearly drawn. Rack has front/back views but doesn’t pull jumpers between them, has secured swith installed backwards, appears to have a server at the top of the rack where a patch panel should be. 5
3
8 Good refit of class' sample code. Brief is very quick overview of the topic but says nothing about the market or the companies in it. Images are oo big. 10 I wish for pictures newer than 2015, appreciate your digging up this stuff and highlighting it, brief is good too. 0
59552 0 0


0
0
0
0
61729 42 17 Way late, misses specs for curved corners on drops and jumpers and crossed lines where none are necessary. Purchasing docs need some review, could be patched after a meeting. 5
3
8.5 Got mobile-ffiendly with simple markup, has numerous validation errors, content is on-target. 8.5 Weak refs are not on topic of market, market shares as requested, looks like a rush job, helps a little to keep me current 0
64647 9

1 All kinds of attempts to echo stuff and avoid using vi, obvious paste of unformatted paragraphs 0 Nothing for Part #2 0 Nothing done 8 All about the tech, useful to see refs, no mention of competitors or their share of this important tech market 0
64914 44 18 Servers are waaay overpriced, only needs something like 4 $1,800 servers, not $14K each! How did you find GrayBar? Is a very real supplier Floorplan is accurately drawn but misses spec for curvy drops and pulls some outside the premises. The rack shape is waaay distorted, should be fixed before using in a portfolio, but appears accurately drawn and labelled, uses front/rear views appropriately to demo the DMZ. 5
3
8 Independent page is OK, not very polished look, is not mobile-friendly, doesn't work easy on smartphone, cleared spec errors, validates OK. 10 This sheaf of original refs isn't what I was expecting to see on this popular topic, but I like it better, have tossed it on the heap to turn over again. 0
73744 8 0
1 No Files, no Outlines directory 0 Nothing for Part #2 2 Not much there to score. 5 Thanks for this which confirms whiat I believe about this marketplace, but has no highlighted refs that provide me super access to the market facts. 0
74447 48 20 Easy to score, would suggest practice with the drawing tools, is not the most polished/pro look. Drops on the floorplan would be better placed within the premises and not over sidewalks and neighboring spaces, and by making the bundle thicker and labelling it. 5
3
10 Some little hanging-out errors when adapting class' sample code, is valid and MF 10 Found same stuff as others, covered it well 0
74634 17 12 Late submit, under the door. Floorplan places telecomm jacks on desks, not in walls as spec'd, bundel should originate at the rack, kinda appears in the middle of the hallway, south wall is missing. Purchasing docs are maybe 10% of what's required. 2 Lots of trying stuff, only File1 complete, what ever and fffggff in others 3
0


0
76145 0

0
0
0


0
76635 47 20 Overall fine set of docs, very clear. Front/back view of rack isn’t used the best, should be pulling jumpers between the views to more clearly demo the DMZ, uses large servers and has keyboard closer to shoulder level than waist. Has separate line for each phone coming from the VOIP controller which should only have one jumper into an uplink on the LAN switch. 5
3
9 Validates, looks somewhat mobile-friendly but fails due to controls too close together. 10 This looks like you know I need to talk about this a few times a year and have helped keeped me current. The brief and the pertinent, current refs are appreciated 0
78782 44.5 19 Late, under door. Reduce the font size on summaries and POs so there aren't orphaned totals, otherwise is all very clear, thoughtfully detailed. Floorplan has some drops represented outsite the premises, and would benefit from bundles of Cat6 being drawn thiicker and labelled as bundles. Rack schmatic is clearly drawn, would be more valuable for your portfolio if revisted and drawn with front/back views like the clearest of the examples posted. 3 UniCode 3
10 Adapted class' sample site, kept it valid and mobile-friendly. 9.5 Thanks for getting your eyes on market facts for this emergent tech, had to dock it for lack of market share figures compared to others on this topic in this heap. This is a good survey, is appreciated 0
80092 31.5 19 Late submit, otherwise is all very clear. Rack might be improved by using similar shaped curves for the jumpers, the longer ones are kinda bent where the shorter ones are smooth curves. 5
0.5 Only junk in Brief1, no outline, one ref to a website not an article 7
Good looking site is mobile-friendly, not valid, lots of spec violations not fixed


0
81674 48 20 Floorplan is super clear as drawn, would suggest bringing all the bundles and drops into our premises, not in the alley, sidewalk, and equipment in the building's core. The rack is also very clear, but the servers, pcu, and ups are in the rack backwards -- consider looking for more VisioCafe shapes rather than mixing real and generic shapes, and drawing front/rear views with equipment accurately jumpered, like the clearest of the samples provided. Purchasing docs are neatly assembled and have the requested summaries, any errors would be easy to disuss/correct... 5
3
10 Simple site demo's responsive, MF, valid 10 Quick runthru of leaders in this market 0
85548 0

0 Started way late, got nothing done 0 Tried to catch up, may be some progress, but nothing for Part #2 0


0
85712 47.5 20 Well-drawn, clear. Upfront cost would be more usefull if there was one line per supplier as requested rather than repeat of every detail. Front/rear rack view would be better if jumpers were pulled between the views so you can show them plugging into the detailed VisioCafe shapes and not stuck to bare metal. Take time to find VC shapes for all the equipment... 5
3
9.5 Good looking site, responds well, docked for distorted images that detract from an otherwise pro look, sinple demo of all else. Consider revisiting styling to set either height or width as auto to avoid distorting images as they're responding to rotate, stretch, or shrink... 10 Thanks for this sheaf of refs, is good for me to see as the players in this market fade in/out quick. Did Kaspersky do anything wrong? 0
89741 34 9 Original submit was not acceptable as related in class. Resubmit is not much improved over the original, floorplan is way distorted, misses jacks for printers and here & there, doesn't used the telecomm jack symbol as spec'd. The rack diagram is incompletely jumpered and IP assignments aren't accurately labelled. The purchasing documents mix recurring with purchase costs. The 'hardware' PO is made-up stuff, doesn't provide any part #s or supplier for me to check after pricing. It's distressing when a student will not get recommended software, can't virtualize or dual-boot a Mac, and does sloppy work wth a lesser tool. 5
3
7 Invalid, not MF, doesn't respond well, lets graphics crash over text, could revisit and style graphics to percentage of width to keep it from happening. 10 Inflated reference list for a few paragraphs, short on market facts, at least showed one 0
90594 45 17 Late-submitted stuff made it acceptable. Not acceptable without separate purchase orders per supplier and the summaries. I do appreciate the effort and reasonable bill of details but the presentation is not as spec'd. Floor plan is accurately drawn but misses spec for curved corners on drops and jumpers, also runs premesis wiring outside the premesis in neighboring spaces. The rack is accurately drawn, attempts front/rear view but doesn't use it to show DMZ clearly by pulling jumpers between them, as drawn there are un-used ethernet ports on the servers' rears. but jumpers are drawn on the other side, terminating on bare metal. Squiggly lines representing jumpers detract from a polished look, should be simpler curved connectors with a few control points, not drawn freehand or bezier... 5
3
10 Got all points by quickly adapting class' samples. 10 This class has really given me an eyefull of current stuff about this topic, which is folding into SaaS and shaking the giants. 0
98289 47 20 Easy to score, would only suggest revisiting the rack to make the jumpers more like the neatest in the examples posted and less like the ones on the boss' sketch, also align the callouts with IP addresses and embolden the line, is very hard to interpret the DMZ the way it's labeled. The floorplan would benefit from making the bundle of CAT6 down the hallway thicker and labeling it, is a bit sloppy as drawn but is elegant and accurate, too. 5
3
10 Quickly adapted class' sample, kept it valid 9 Refs are stale, brief is otherwise fine, reinforces my beliefs about this tech 0
98334 37 12 Total Cost Summary is not useful, mixes recurring costs with up-front purchases, crazy choices for jumpers $45 each as an example? But the package is neatly assembled and could be corrected following a meeting about it. There is a lot of effort in the rack diagram, but my copy is not useful as printed, IP assignments are not labelled at the etherenet ports as spec'd, are ambiguous and make it hard to recognize the DMZ scheme. Please get any questions answered and resubmit something that will be valuable in your portfolio. Mixing VisioCafe with generic shapes detracts from a pro look. Consider a front/rear view like the clearest of the examples posted with the project, as it is you're showing the front, with its disks exposed, but not the backs where the more-important ethernet ports are found... 5
3
8 Good-looking site has validation errors and doesn't score as mobile-friendly but is responsive including hamburger and other features 9 Quick overview doesn't name players or specifics, does reinforce what I believe about this. 0
98445 24 17 Resubmit has well-done floorplan and rack, printed appropriately. Some extravagant choice in the BOD could be easily fixed after a meeting. Earlier: Purchase orders have several errors, but are neatly prepared and would be easy to edit after a meeting. The purchase summary would be more valuable if it had a line with the amount due each vendor rather than all the details from the purchase orders, not summarized by vendor as requested. The monthy recurring costs way understates SuperPEO maintenance and doesn't appear to set aside maintenance for pcs and printers? The rack diagram is printed too small to be useful although it may be accurately drawn and uses the front/rear views well -- appropriately printed this would be valuable in a portfolio. There is no floorplan. 0 Nothing done, got password way after due date 0 Nothing for Part #2 2 Only a placeholder 5 No refs, nothing current, doesn't show shares of market only describes three techs in it 0
98923 42 20 Floorplan is clearly drawn, drops drawn outside of premises should be pulled inside. The rack is a schematic and is accurately drawn and labeled but is sloppy in appearance, would benefit from using consistently curved connectors for jumpers instead of spaghetti-like, also maybe turn off the U numbers and try for labeling components and ip addresses with fewer crossed lines. We don’t need the $125/each tapes, could get along with $12 each, other questionable details could be patched after a meeting, provides requested summaries. 5
3
7 Has validation errors, is not mobile-friendly, not usable on smartphone. Is off-topic, describes the tech but no mention of manufacturers and share of dwindling market 7 Paperwork showed up in another class' work, no name on the front, delayed seeing itt. I appreciate your grab at the trade rags and shef of stuff that interests you. No paperwork here, scored from website without marked up refs, LMK if something's been misplaced 0
98968 44 18 SuperPEO purchase is way high, mainenance way low, waaay out of line for tapes and other equipment like jumpers, isn't real bill of details, more like lorem pisum. The floorplan is accurately traced, useful for installation, misses some drops, would be clearer if the connector representing the CAT6 bunde was thicker and labelled. The rack appears an accurately labelled schematic, appearance is not pro look, maybe take the obrders off the callouts for equipment labels and turn off the U numbers. Ethernet ports are ambiguously assigned, and jumpers don't use bold, curved connectors as specs request. 5
3
8 Doesn't validate, not mobile-friendly 10 Best set of refs for this popular topic, thanks 0