F I N A L Grades:

Sorry for late posting wih no time for review before grades are posted to eServices.  There was a huge heap of re-takes and re-submits, and I must look away from this stuff more than at it to stave off blindness...

113 Points Total

Points Due: 113 20 20
5
3
20 20 10
15
Last 5 V# Grade Bonus % of Due Points Earned Quiz #1 LAN Project Points LAN Critique HOL Part 1 Part 1 Critique HOL Part 2 Part 2 Critique Quiz #2 Quiz #3 Tech Brief & Refs Tech Brief Critique HOL Part 3 HOL Critique
03104 A
92.0 104 15 20 Overall fine job, lots of care with details of purchase and the drawings. The only thing I note as out of whack is that network equipmnet is slipped backwards in the rear view of the rack, as in the best of the front/rear samples posted, might want to paatch that before putting this in your portfolio, appears accurately drawn even with this gaffe. Curved corners on drops and jumpers are appreciated. 5
3
19 17.5 10 Refs are good to see, Gartner and other stuff available to students is appreciated, authoritative 14.5 Refreshing to see material.css used, stealth links defeat info300.net's gotta be local links. Validation error.
08562 A
96.9 109.5 20 19.5 Floorplan is useful as drawn, might be the way somebody would pull the wires, bundle should be thicker and labelled 'bundle of CAT6', some drops are missing for networked printers. Rack is very well drawn and highly detailed front/rear view, appears accurate, missed spec for rounded corners on jumpers, bonused back all but a fraction for this. 5
3
18 19 10 Didn't need marked-up Wiki pages but other stuff available to you is rich 15 Lightweight css validates, works, is the clear demo requested
08912 A
92.9 105 20 20 That green background on the purchasing docs is going to suck your ink-cartridge dry, docs would look better if all the POs were the same width, no loss of points, just IMHO for a portfolio, POs appear reasonable and are summarized as requested. Clear floorplan has IP assignments, might want to make bundle thicker than separate drops and label as bundle of CAT6, also run them inside the premises. The rack is accurately drawn as a front-view schematic and is clearly labelled. Consider a front/rearview like one of the better-drawn samples posted with the assignment to put in your portfolio.. 0 Nothing done, not one session 0 Nothing there 20 20 10 On-target, excellent refs 15 Validates, got specs, looks good. I'd suggest putting the 'gallery' of three images in a div with text-align center so they dont all hug the left in a wider browser.
09294 A
90.3 102 18 19.5 Floorplan is clearly drawn, misses spec for Telecomm symbol and jacks aren't in the walls as requested, has jumpers pulled across offices across the room. The rack is a clearly drawn and labelled schematic front view, would suggest drawing each jumper instead of putting 5 together on one connector. Purchasing docs are neatly assembled, reflect an extravagant romp through HP, would be easy to fix in a meeting... 5 Minimal done to get paragraphs, sentences spec got points. 3 Not well-developed outline, appears on-topic, sparse references 15.5 19 7 Kinda didn't get the idea of 'marked up original references', does address market shares and competition but I've got no idea where the original ref is, which shoud be in my hand 15 Yet another RWD tute bent to purpose, valid, responsive, quick
10689 C 5.0 73.0 82.5 11 14 Summaries are up after the cover page as requested. The Floorplan is missing network jacks and has none of the drops drawn in, also places several jacks where the jumpers will need to be pulled across the office. The rack is neatly drawn and clearly labelled schematic front view, abuses ethernet switch to substitute for the PCU/ATS. Practice at this, maybe do a front/rear view with VisioCafe shapes for all components, would be valuable in a portfolio. Purchasing docs appear reasonable, would be easy to fix any issues in a meeting, but some of the purchase orders span cross pages. Was docked 3 points for late submit, less 3 points for errors. 5
1.5 Outline is not indented according to specs, please learn what an outline is. The outline is mostly about the technology where it should be mostly about the market, who's the leader, competitors, market share... 9.5 17.5 10 To the point, gives me authoirty to say '100 to 1' or more' when talking about these machines and unix 14 Simple mobile-first design works everywhere and validates. Abuse of h-tag where h1 is used repeatedly in a context where it's always a subheader, doesn't reflect the outline structure. Imported UniCode from somewhere.
11180 B
83.2 94 17 17.5 Purchasing docs appear reasonable and are summarized as requested, maintenance is doubled up with 12% applied to the entire purchase although some big items are listed separately like WebNPO maintenance. Rack diagram appears sloppy with different shapes for each jumper and several crossed lines where none are required. Floorplan is also sloppy, has freelt-drawn curves instead of connectors with curved corners as demo'd and in the best samples, is somewhat useful. 5 Files barely got specs, File2 with elipses 3 Appears on target 17 9.5 10 Good eye-candy for somebody who mostly sees this market thru y'all's research on it 15 YAN RWD tute...
11381 A
94.9 107.25 19 19.5 Wildly extravagant, is twice some I see, 90% over most, is all neatly assembled, could be brought in line in a meeting. Floorplan is neatly and accurately drawn, missed spec for curved corners on drops, has us moving the ladder a lot, isn't consistent with the width of the drops that peel off the bundles. The rack is a clearly drawn front view schematic, is useful, isn't as flash as a well-done front/rear view with all VisioCafe shapes... 5
3
19.75 16 10 Thanks for good refs and brief, I set it aside, first I've seen of these contrasted, Oracle was Grid, IBM Sysplex, not a cloud anywhere 15 YAN RWD tute, valid, mobile-friendly, responsive
12123 A
91.2 103 15 20 Servers are wildly expensive and other costly components make this a very expensive proposal, but is neatly assembled and could be fixed in a meeting. Diagrams are crystal clear, got all specs 5
3 Looks interesting, please try to dig upfacts about market share of major players 17 18 10 Thanks for finding lists that show overview of the market and shares 15 YAN RWD tute, valid, mobile-friendly, responsive
12286 B
84.3 95.25 15.25 17.5 Purchase orders have some questionable choices, not what was requested in the memo, like a Store Forever and a server on a PCM order? HP servers are way over-priced, not what was recommended in class. The docs are neatly assembled and summarized as requested, would be easy to fix in a meeting. The floorplan is neatly drawn and useful for the job at hand, misses spec for curved connectors for drops, also for thicker bundle with drops peeled off it rather than same thickness for bundle and separate drops, might want to rethink routing of bundles with dragging a ladder in mind.The rack is printed too small to be useful and isn't a good job of a front/back view -- switches and patch panel jacks face the fron of the rack, server's ethernet jacks are on the rear, proper use of the front/rear view is to pull the cables between them. Check out the best of the samples provided with the assignment and have another go at it before you put it in a portfolio, misses specs for curved connectors for jumpers, may be neatly and accurately labelled but is too small to see. Working with VisioCafe shapes is good to see. 4 Left pasted UniCode in spite of assignment to edit paragraphs with vi 3
12.5 18 10 Rich set of refs, more printed than needed, brief is entirely current, several students used Azure this semester, are in good company 15 Lightweight css responds nicely, based mostly on semantic elements. HTML validates, is easy on the eyes
12541 A
89.8 101.5 18 18
5
3
16.5 16 10 Best of these so far, thanks for digging 15 YAN RWD tute, valid, mobile-friendly, responsive
14531 B
79.2 89.5 10 19.5 Summary of cost page mixed recurring with up-front purchases inappropriately, but docs are neatly prepared and would be easy to corrent the draft in a meeting. Diagrams are very clear, would suggest floorplan could be improved by making the bundle's connector thicker, labelling it 'bundle of CAT6' and peeling drops off it to the Telecomm symbol, which could be made larger to make jacks easier to see. 5
2.5 Long on tech description with little or nothing about market players, shares... References are spec'd as being single-spaced 12 14.5 11 Wish you'd found more like the 'global forecast' to affirm my biases on this 15 Does it all, adapted code from RWD tute, kept it valid, mobile-friendly, is easy on the eyes, clear demo of semantic markup
14628 B
79.9 90.25 19.25 18.5 Purchasing docs appear close, are neatly assembed with the requested summaries, would be easy to patch after a meeting with the boss. The floorplan shows drops as whispy broken lines on the printed copy, telecomm jacks could be a little larger, missed spec for curved corners on drops and jumpers. Rack diagram appears accuragely drawn, is a clear-enough schematic, misses spec for xcurved corners on drops. Labels appear sloppy on the rack, should be aligned with each other, not jumbled around with different shapes on the callout lines. Free-hand drawn VOIP/switch jumper is ugly, servers use VisioCafe shapes, but are backwards in the rack. Check the best of the front/rear views in the samples posted and practice before putting this in your portfolio. 2 Left permissions out of spec, no Files comply with paragraphs/senteences spec. 3
9.5 17 10 Overdid the printed copy stuff, to be safe maybe, but does contrast market giants 11 Numerous validation errors, links don't work, sloppy appearance. Doesn't use semantic markup, has obsolete bold tags instead of h, strong, or em... Misses spec for contstrained container 800 or 960 px, content spreads across wide-on browser
15543 C
75.2 85 15 18 Purchasing docs are well-prepared, appear reasonable, would be easy to fix in a meeting. Floorplan misses spec for curved corners on drops, doesn't have enough Telecomm connectors for shipping bench, wouild be better with thick bundles of CAT6 with thinner drops peeling off it, as drawn doesn't look like ethernet network. Rack appears accurately drawn, misses spec for curved jumpers, doesn't label all the ports on the DMZ, otherwise is good-looking with VisioCafe shapes for equipment, would suggest doing it again with front/rear view, reference the best-looking of the samples posted, to make a better piece for a portfolio. 5
3
8 13 8 OK descriptive piece about a vendor, doesn't mention compettiion or who's got what share. Refs don't have much to do with the brief 15 Adapted code from RWD tute, validates, is responsive.
15676 C
74.8 84.5 18 13 Resubmit is improved, still misses specs for curved drops and bundles, got docs more complete. Original: Another submit showed up way late under my door, is also not acceptable, purchase orders are mostly to the same supplier. Package too closely resembles another student's project, most errors are the same. On-time submit: Not acceptable as presented, floorplan is incomplete, leaves boss' sloppy sketch in place, isn't an improvement. Purchasing docs are wildly formatted, useless as printed. 4 Left a permissions spec violation on Outlines. Logs show quick work ahead of deadline. 0 Nothing but topic in Outlines/Brief1 15 10.5 10 Thanks for digging up some refs, printed more thn needed to support a few market facts 14 Got graphics at top nice and fluid, could apply it to others on the page. Menu disappears when responding down to phone size. Stray end tag. Good picture of semantic page markup.
16196 F
46.9 53 17.5

0 Nothing done 0
15.5 20


Nothing there at 11th hour
17374 A
96.7 109.25 20 19.25 Purchasing docs and summaries look reasonable, well put-together. Floorplan is minimal, accuratey traced, misses points for non-curved, wispy drops. Rack diagram is well done, should dummy up bare plates for back of patch panel if you're not using VisioCafe which shows both. Drops would look better if all the same style of curved lines, IMHO, and if they were plugged into the ports on the switches and not the bare metal, some IP assignments are amibiguous sincle labels are place in the jumper and not callouts to the ports as requested. 5
3
19.5 18 10 Left name off the papers, was able to match it up with your Outlines/Brief1 easy 14.5 Adaptation of RWD tute, kept it valid, mobile-friendly. Left UniCode.
21269 D
60.4 68.25 14.25 9 Resubmit still not acceptable. Original was Not acceptable, drawings not complete, floorplan is not an accurate tracing and way distorts the shape of the remises, not drops, rack is likewise distorted, tooo small to use, and has no drops or IP assignments. Purchasing docs are neatly assembled but have some made-up entries that don't get specs in memo, like PCs - 8 Gig RAM for $279 and items like the cart left blank. Didn't follow advice to use few, well-known vendors so parts could be looked up.
No summary of up-front purchases.
2 Missed spec for paragraphs and sentences in the Files. Stay away from SFTP except to move graphics 3
14 13 8 Entirely descriptive refs and brief, nothing about market, shares of major players as requested 5 Lots of validation errors in the html. Links are on buttons and don't work. The css is internal where external style sheet was required.
21989 F
50.9 57.5 2 10 Resubmit's not very acceptable, either, really sloppty packet lots of blank pages, purchase orders don't fit, drawings need lots of practice. Original was Not acceptable: The floorplan is neatly done, but doesn't have drops accurately drawn, looks like the whole offices' only network attachment is WiFi and that's specifically not the case, there are lots of crossed lines. The rack isn't complete, is a jumble of inappropriate shapes, has keyboard at shoulder level. Please rework and resubmit. 5
3 Appears on target, comprehensive, my big drones won't fly without it, best with 12+ stellites 3 9.5 10 Thanks for collecting useful stuff about this tech and its market. 15 RWD yet again, is quick, validates, is mobile-friendly and responsive
25379 C
75.7 85.5 10.5 14 Is docked 3 points for late submit. Servers are way over-priced, advice in class was around 3K$, not 13K, advertising computer is not appropriate. Purchasing docs are neatly prepared and could be patched in a meeting. Requested summaries are provided. The floorplan is sloppy in a ppearance with premises wiring drawn in two different colors, and the shapes don't reflect the bundle of CAT6 with drops peeling off it , doesn't resemble ethernet as drawn, doesn't use the required Telecomm jack symbol,and doesn't put the jacks in the walls as requested, has them on the fronts of desks and benches It resembles none of the sample drawings provided. The rack diagram doesn't use callouts to directly label the IP assignments as reqquested, and the jumpers are stuck onto the bare metal of the rack and not into the ethernet ports of switches. Some jumpers are drawn 'forked' instead of the separate connector per jumper recommended. 5
0 No outline 14 17 10 Thanks, I can't see too much of this stuff I need to talk about 15 Simple css is based on semantic elements, works, responds, validates
28343 A
99.1 112 19 20 Thicker bundles with thinner drops peeling off would show topology better, has misplaced some jacks where jumper woul pull across office. Rack is clear, simple schmatic, get VisioCafe and practice if you'd like more impact in a portfolio, Rack is almost too small to be useful as printed. Purchase orders appear reasonable with some questionable choices, are neatly assembled and could be patched in a meeting. 5
3
19 20 11 This is really over the top, a whole course's worth, is appreciated 15 Another adaptation of the RWD tute, still valid, responvie.
28488 A
92.5 104.5 20 20 Honor violation will be referred to honor coordinator. Was submitted late, docked 3 points. The HP PO has waaay overpriced servers, 12K each where advice was less than $2K would work fine, this network would run OK on old Pentiums. But the purchasing docs are neatly prepared and summarized, would be easy to fix in a meeting. The floorplan appears accurately traced, misses spec for smooth curves in drops, would be improved by making the bundle thicker, labelling it as a bundle of CAT6, and peeling individual drops off it Jacks are not placed in/on the walls as spec'd, and some require dragging jumpers across the floor. The rack is a neatly drawn and labelled front view schematic -- I'd suggest practicing at this and using _all_ VisioCafe shapes on a front/rear view as a better peice for a portfolio. 5 Cleared out UniCode, is appreciated 3 Not a well-developed outline, sparse references, doesn't appear to be headed to a tech _market_ brief, nothing but history is referenced. 14.5 17 10 Gets to the point of the assignment, pithy facts 15 RWD tute adapted well, stayed valid and mobile-friendly. Look at using more _paragraphs_ some of yours are like 'wall of text', should be broken up into shorter paragraphs, IMHO
29277 A
89.8 101.5 16 18.5 All is neatly put together, any questions/corrections from the boss could be touched up in a meeting. Floorplan misses spec for curved corners on drops and doesn't use requested Telecomm jack symbol where drops are terminated. Rack appears accurately drawn, could be polished a bit my using similar shaped curves for all the drops. 4 Left a permission out of spec 3 Is not a well-developed outline that will make a good demo of semantic markup, sparse references, appears on track, make sure to get _market_ facts. 17 18 10 Gathered useful facts, pro/con series for these competing techs is appreciated 15 Tweaked RWD tute a little, might have left a lot of space unused as it responds, kept it valid, scores as mobile-friendly
32483 C
76.5 86.5 20 17
5
3 Appears on topic, competing technologies slugging it out 15.5 16 10


36108 A
90.3 102 16 18 Rack is a clear schematic with exaggerated ports for ethernet/IP assignment, misses spec for curved corners on drops and jumpers. Extened dmarcs for T3 would probably leave the dmarc shed close to the wall and along the inside of our premises, not the netighbor's., better-looking drawings have drops bundled, also spec asks for curved corners on drops. Telecomm adaptors should be the same-sized symbol througout the diagram, and in the offices the jacks. Upfront cost summary isn't in the requested format with a line for each supplier so we know how much to write the checks, yours is a re-statment of the details from the well put-together purchase orders, would be easy to fix in a meeting. 5
2 Unicode in a file spec'd to be edited with vi, otherwise appears on topic 20 17 10 Gartner, PCPartsPicker juxtaposed, entirely current subject, brief appreciated 14 Must dock for validation error, otherwise is clear demo of specs
38534 B
87.2 98.5 16.5 17 Resubmit is improved. Original was Not acceptable: Lots of croseed lines in the floorplan where none are specified, shelf unit shapes are way distorted, impression is a very sloppy diagram that doesn't have network jacks where needed, attention to some details is appreciated. The rack has crossed lines where none are specified, has ambiguously labelled ip assignments. There is no upfront summary by supplier, and almost all Purchase orders span pages making them hard to read an impossible to use. 4 Files don't get paragraphs/sentences spec. 2 No well-developed outline to demo semantic markup in online content, way spaarse references, doesn't appear to be headed toward current and future market trends, id competitors and their shares? 20 17 10 Thanks for digging a bit at this, any numbers are good for me to see 12 Lots of validation errors, does score as mobile-friendly and may be mobile-first. Content isn't constrained to 800 - 960 px as spec'd, but looks good on a phone.. Very lightweight css.
38723 B
88.3 99.75 13.25 19 Highly detailed and colorful floorplan, misses spec for curved corners on drops, and has them placed where jumpers need to be pulled across office or around corners, drops on back counters would be better placed on the walls. Front/rear view of rack has patch panel and switches installed backwards on rear view, callouts don't have consistent lines. Check the better of the front/rear views in the samples provided with the assignment and practice would get you better-looking stuff for a portfolio. Purchasing docs appear reasonable, have the requested summaries, and bar charts are the 1st I've ever seen. This is all put together well and any corrections would be easy to make in a meeting. 5 You need to stop using SFTP for everything and show me you can navigate at the command line... 3 Wow, ambitious, on track, don't go overboard, this is a brief not a thesis, thanks 17 17.5 10 Isn't what I was expeccting, but is a good survey, is appreciated 15 Light application of Bootstrap got specs, validates, demos semantic markup
39080 A
95.6 108 20 18 Floorplan jumbles drops for CAT6 with extended dmarc for the T3, has some drops pulled across the office in spite of advice not to. Both drawing miss the spec for curved jumpers and drops, rack has lots of crossed lines where none is desirable, has taken care to clearly label IP assignments. Details aren't clear enough to check after items, like 4 Intel servers with no model or part#, others are clearly shown 5 Logs show quick progress ahead of deadline 2 No well-developed outline to demo semantic markup in online content, way spaarse references, doesn't appear to be headed toward current and future market trends, id competitors and their shares? 19 19 10 Seeing these techs and manufacturers together is good survey as this plays out 15 Minimally styled pages respond fine cross devices, dead simple, validates, works anywhere
39521 F
21.2 24 8 0 Way late, is unacceptable, no purchase orders, no requested summaries, and the drawings are not useful as printed. 0 Nothing done past passwd 0
0 16

0
40330 B
80.5 91 11 17 Resubmit addresses most issues in the original, isn't a polished project yet, please practice with this and strive to be more like the best examples posted. Original: Not acceptable, is incomplete, floorplan isn't a faithful tracing, no drops or jumpers on diagrams, no summaries, only purchase order is one cart on-line. 5
2 Nothing but topic in Outlines/Brief1 at deadline 14.5 16.5 10 Very useful chart showing share of market by major techs in this important infrastructure 15 Fine use of the RWD tute samples, kept valid and mobilt-friendly. You should _style_ paragraphs and h-tags if you want space at the left! NOT stick &nbsp into the content! Separate style from content...
40861 B
81.9 92.5 18 16 Floorplan is neatly done, misses spec for curved, bold connectors for drops, yellow lines with square corners are very hard to see, appears accurately and thoughtfuly drawn. Rack is a clear schematic view, appears jumpered and labelled accurately, could stand a little un-kinking of jumper, maybe revisiting labelling to be more consistent, turn off the U-numbers. Purchase orders appear reasonable, purchasing summary is not included, recurring costs look OK. 5
3
13 16.5 10
11 Missed spec for constrained content no wider than 800 or 960 pixels, content splats across a wide browser. HTML doesn't validate. Images get cut off as the browser gets into tablet/mobile width, does score mobile-friendly due to simple html.
42280 A
89.8 101.5 16 19 Floorplan reflects lots of care, is accurately traced and neatly drawn, has wildly inappropriate shapes for shelving units, looks like stretched sofas? Bundle of CAT6 should be thicker and labelled like 'bundle of CAT6' with separate drops peeled off it, all should be inside the premises not on the loading dock, would be better with same line style for bundle and drops rather than solid & dashed. The rack reflects lots of care, is clearly drawn and labelled, misses spec that asks for ethernet ports to be labelled directly, some ambiguous assignments because jumpers are labelled. Find a VisioCafe shape for the monitor rather than dropping stark, generic shape in when adjacent shapes are all VisioCafe graphics. Revisit the shapes for 'patch panel'b-- What you have is not a CAT6 patch panel, it would be surprising that the 'secure switch' would have plugs on the rear, LAN swith is suspect, both should be same except for number of ports. Purchasing docs appear reasonable, are well put together and could be patched in a meeting... 5
3 Appears on-target, competitors compared... 17.5 18 10
13 Novel design is simple, doesn't validate, isn't mobile-friendly. Might want to work with the RWD tute or Bootstrap for a better-working site.
42751 A
94.7 107 20 17 Resubmit improved. Prior was Unacceptable, submitted without required summaries: Floorplan is carefully put together, useful as drawn, missed fraction for not using curved corners on wispy network drops that don't look like as spec'd. Rack is a clear schematic of a rack, would only suggest lighter lines for the callouts to the IP assignments.. Talent like this should be taking onVisioCafe and practice. 5
3 On topic, please try to find #s of users for each of these competitors and any others you happen to dig up. 18 19 10 It's good to see facts like you dug up about this important tech, tail that wags the IT dog 15 Uses Bootstrap to good advantage, site validates and is mobile-friendly. Semantic markup is ok, abuses breaks within paragraphs a bit.
43477 B 5.0 78.5 88.75 11.5 17 Resubmit is greatly improved, could use another round of critique and more practice, try to be simpler, less-cluttered, more like the best of the examples posted. Prior was:Not acceptable: incomplete floorplan has no drops or Telecomm jacks, isn't useful for the installer. Rack diagram could be improved by being consistent the curve style at the bends and printing it twice as big. Purchasing docs are clear, draft could be easiy patched up in a meeting. 5 Now that you've moved bootstrap to the server, please stay away from SFTP... 2.5 Has been using sftp to copy files that are required to be edited with vi, also used sftp to remove files and navigate where the requirement is to work at the command line with vi. This is probably what's confusing you... 12.75 15.5 10 Thanks for looking into this, first update for a long time 14.5 Missed spec for left-justified content, has centered text. Otherwise put together a valid and mobile-friendly site, is a clear demo of semantic markup
43534 F
0.0 0 0
Nothing here 0 Nothing done, not one session 0
0 0

0
43644 C
70.4 79.5 6.5 20 Diagrams appear accurately drawn. Floorplan could be improved by making the bundled cables thicker and lebelling them, then pulling thinner drops off the bundle to the Telecomm jacks. Rack is a little cluttered and hard to pick jumpers off the fronts of the equipment, also colors dont really help in this case, might appear less cluttered with same-colored jumpers pulled off to the side of the rack to emphasize the DMZ. Purchasing docs are complete with summaries, a good draft that could be easiy patched in a meeting. 5
3 Appears on topic, but please try to dig up # of units for these two competitors and any others than happen to show up. 6 14 10 To the point, thank you for charts and lists, are valuable to see 15 Adapted sample code, kept it valid and mobile friendly, good demo of semantic markup in the brief
44266 F
22.1 25 8

0 Nothing done 0
0 17

0
44632 D
67.7 76.5 18 10 Resubmit still has no purchase orders, didn't follow advice to refer to the best-looking samples for the resubmit. Prior was Unacceptable: Way late, under door, no purchase orders, floor plan is not this semester's case study. Please review this semester's assignment and the examples of acceptable work posted. 5
3 Is not a well-developed outline to make a good demo of semantic markup for content, appears on topic, sparse references 11 8.5 10 It's good for me to see the market leaders listed out, the rest is interesting stuff 11 Misses spec for external css applied to all pagaes. HTML is way invalid, struture of page is out of whack. Content isn't constrained, spreads across wide browser. It does test as mobile-friendly.
45223 B
80.5 91 14.5 15 Marked Late Under Door, feedback was in email 5
3 Impressive outline, please try to get facts about # of holders for these certs, if you haven't already 14 16.5 10 Not what I had in mind, but it does fit the assignment, was good to see. It's a good career path, good PM's needed everywhere 13 Lots of validation errors, otherwise good use of Bootstrap. Demo of semantic markup would be better if h-levels weren't skipped -- they indicate level of outline, not font-size, which should be in the css...
45659 F
19.0 21.5 12.5 0 Unacceptable and late. Is missing purchase orders for everything not in the Amazon cart. Some drops don't appear connected to the network room. The rack has overlapped and crossed wires, doesn't callout ip assignments for ethernet ports as requested, aand the jumpers arae plugged into bare metal, has used aan ethernet switch where a KVM should be, and a patch panel where the PCU/ATS should be. 4.5 Left three long lines in otherwise fine work 3 Well-dummied up outline doesn't appear to show major players in the market or their shares in it? Is this stuff for real yet? 1.5 0

0
47135 F
16.4 18.5 3.5 0 Honor violation will be referred to honor coordinator. Late submit, docked 3 points. Bill of details is grossly overpriced, and the recurring cost summary includes way over-priced up-front purchases, making the whole thing really wrong. The HP PO includes severs priced at $23K where $2 to $3K was mentioned as reasonable, and the line isn't extended properly, neither is the line for over-priced tape drives. The floorplan is neatly drawn, accurately traced, got curved shapes for drops, should be redrawn thinking about dragging a ladder around, fewer bundle would be better, plus some jacks are not in the walls, and some for networked printers are missing. 5 Did absolute minimum for paragraphs and sentences. 0
10 0

0
47459 A
95.6 108 20 20 All rings true very quickly, is appreciated. Rear/front view of rack could be improved by making whispy jumpers bolder and making the curves similarly shaped. Extra effort like showing _every_ jumper on the rack shows talent and respect for the assignment. 3 Pasted Unicode in Files where assignment was to use vi to edit files and avoid desktop editors, lorem ipsum generators. Logs show good approach to the project. 3 Right on topic, 2 major distros, please try to find usage #s for these two and any others that might show up... 17 19 11 Fresh eye candy for this topic, thanks for rich collection of references 15 Exemplary stuff, adapted sample code nicely, kept it valid and mobile-friendly
49583 D
58.4 66 14 11 Resubmitted drawings not much improved or completed. Original, Not acceptable as submitted, incomplete rack and floorplan, will be looking for complete package. No need to make up items #s where they're not used to tie to a cataloged items. Purchasing docs and summaries appear reasonable, are well put together, draft would be easy to patch in a meeting. 5
1 No well-developed outline, only a single sentence 9 6 7 Light on refs and not anything about market facts. What's there is nicely put together from a couple of references 13 Pages don't validate, are otherwise good demo of semantic markup. Design is a little off, IMHO, full-width nav with left-clinging main section isn't a pro look, keep at it. Imported lots of UniCode where the assignment was to edit stuff with vi.
50056 B
83.2 94 10 18 Drawings are neatly done, appear accurate, are clearly labelled. Docked point for missing spec for curved corners on drops and jumpers. Purchasing docs have some wild items like 2 8-core CPU at $135, but are neatly put together and would be easy to update in a meeting. 5
1 No outline deveoped, one ref appears on topic 18 17 10 Thanks for good take on this, good to have at hand 15 Lightweight css, works, validates, got specs
50065 B
88.1 99.5 14.5 19 Misses spec for curvy drops and jumpers and oterwise drawings are clear and reflect some care. Purchasing docs are neatly assembled and have the required summaries which appear reasonable. BOD wasn't closely checked. 5
1 No outline developed, nothing to make a good demo of semantic markup 15.5 19.5 10 Best refs collection I get to see, is appreciated 15 Minimal css, elements slide around naturally, loyout works anywhere, got specs
50429 C
75.7 85.5 18 17 Summary of up-front purchase is missing significant stuff like app software, electrical work, annual costs are light without support for app software. The rack is neatly drawn and accurately labelled, misses spec for bolder, curved connectors for jumpers. PEU/ATAS s/b PCU/ATS and it shouldn't be represented with an ethernet switch. Drops on the floorplan miss specs for curved shapes, don't use the required Telecomm jack symbol, are run outside the premises, require pulling jumpers across the room. Purchasing docs are neatly prepared, but are missing the same key, big-ticket items as the summaries... 4 Imported UniCode 3 Appears on topic, please dig for # of units, shares, other market facts 13 13.5 5 Didn't comply with marked up original ref requirement, not the best of this popular topic 12 Used RWD tute but messed it up so it's not nicely responsive at all, should revisit media queries. Also, has validation errors
51968 C
74.6 84.25 6.25 14 Resubmit addresses most issues, drawing is still distorted where accurate tracing was required, please practice with this if you're going to show anybody, make yours look more like the best samples posted. Not acceptable as presented, no summay of up-front purchase cost by supplier as required. Meanwhile: the rack appears accurately drawn and labelled, would suggest polishing it some by plugging jumpers into switches' ports and not bare metal, and separating jumpers better with consistent curves, as drawn they converge into a single line near their jack and is hard to see. There is are two extra switches under the kvm drawer, which is placed alittle high. The floorplan misses the spec for curved drops, which would be clearer if the bundles were thicker and had simgle drops peeled off with a curved intersection, as drawn doesn't resemble ethernet's topology, also drops were spec'd to be wall mounted and not require jumpers pulled across floors or along walls. There are some extravagant choice in the purchase orders, but they are neatly put together and would be easy to fix in a meeting. 5
3
15 15 11 Dug up a lot of facts, padded the stack with lesser stuff not needed 15 Nice job with Bootstrap. References section is not done very pro, separating refs with break tags isn't a good idea, making them list items, or even paragraphs is better, style like needed for refs...
52230 B
84.1 95 15 19 Floorplan appears accurately drawn, isn't consistent with the spec for curved corners on drops, also misses advice to place wall jacks where jumpers aren't pulled accross the floor. Clearly drawn schematic of rack is clearly labelled, isn't as polished as some I see, might consider turning off the U numbers and getting the callouts lined up more neatly without kinks in the callout lines that detract from a more pro look. The Tiger direct bill is maybe a little pricey, that and any other errant details could be corrected in a meeting. 0 Nothing done 2 No well-developed outline to demo semantic markup in online content, way spaarse references, doesn't appear to be headed toward current and future market trends, id competitors and their shares? 17.5 16.5 10 A grab bag of market stuff, thanks for your take on it 15 Light application of Bootstrap got specs, validates, demos semantic markup
53125 B
87.2 98.5 17 17 Resubmit is much improved, could benefit from another round of feedback & practice. Original was Not acceptable: Purchase orders are inconsistenty formatted, some illegible as printed, are incomplete, and they're all to the same Vendor. Floorplan appears accurately traced, misses spec for curved corners on drops, bundles should be thicker and labeled as bundle of CAT6, jacks are placed where jumpers would be pulled across an office or wall, drops on shipping bench dont terminate on the wall. The rack has hand-drawn, ambiguous assignments of ips to jumpers, and _all_ jumpers cross where specs ask for no crossed lines. 5
3 Don't lose sight of the assignment being about tech _market_ with major players, # of units, share in the market. Appears too much emphasis on history rather than current, future trends 17 14.5 10 Overkill is always appreciated when it's entirely on-target, thanks 15 Fine job with Bootstrap. Might want to tweak at the cluster of images in the header so they resize better as width decreases, as they are now they get chopped off early.
53471 A
93.8 106 16 20 Clearly drawn schematics are useful as printed, rack could be touched up to avoid jamming jumpers together on the DMZ, adding a curve or two would spread things out. The floorplan has the T3's drawn as thick as a bundle, might be more clear drawn like a single drop wire? Purchasing docs are put together well and have requested summaries, appear reasonable, recurring costs are higher than others I see.. 5
3 Appears on topic, current and emerging techs duking it out 20 17 10 I like to see stuff that confirms my recollections of what I said recently about these competing techs 15 Got it all quick, tweaked RWD tute
53655 C
73.0 82.5 17 14 Rework was somewhat improved, floorplan is still way incomplete. Original: Please rework and resubmit. Floorplan is accurately traced and nicely detailed, misses spec for rounded corners on network drops and bundles, as drawn the bundle's not visible because it's on top of the wall and has square corners, uses a lot of extra wire to get to the rear of the building. The rack diagram reflects an enthusiastic start with VisioCafe shapes for everything, but the diagram is not useful as printed and isn't accurately jumpered, appears like wrong-scaled drawing was used? Check the best of the samples posted of front/rear view racks well-done. Summaries are not labelled, are not consistently formatted, some PO are to the same vendor. 2 No Brief1 at all, didn't complete Files 3 Not a well-developed outline, not yet a good demo of semantic markup, topic appears to have appropriate, if sparse, references 12 10.5 10 Thanks for look through Gaartner and others, is about market leaders 14 Tweaked RWD tute a bit, works fine, left validation errors
53887 F
16.8 19
17.5 Floorplan doesn't quite fit page, is missing jacks forprinters aounr the building. Drops are very hard to see, running inside walls with a very thin connector, should all be running inside the premises, otherwise appears to be an accurate tracing of the sketch provided. The rack is a clearly labelled schematic, might be improved by pulling jumpers to the side of the rack, are hard to see as drawn with light color over the fronts of the servers, U-numbers could be hidden to make more room forlabels and callouts. Purchasing docs and summaries appear reasonable, draft would be easy to fix in a meeting. 0.5 Nothing past 4/5 0
1


0
55487 B
79.6 90 15 14 Resubmit addresses most issues. Original was Docked 3 points for late submit, plus is not acceptable. Floorplan has sloppy drops, square corners where round was spec'd with extra kinks and lines that cross inappropriately or don't meet, not consistent with the Telecomm symbol rquired for each jack, pulls jumpers across the floor, tracing isn't accurate,, is missing walls, runs drops outside the premises on the loading dock. Rack has wiring for PBX, not VOIP as in the specs and examples, is sloppy in appearance with what appear to be freely drawn lines and not the connectors demo'd and uised in the samples, some IP assignments are missing. Summaries are not as required, with a line per vendor, and the purchasing docs are incomplete. 5
2 Incomplete outline, no references, not formatted according to specs 16.5 14.5 10 Thanks for this, adds to my biases against that one 13 Used RWD tute to good advantage, unfortunately injected validation errors. Demo's semantic markup. Imported UniCode.
60340 F
0.4 0.5 0 0 Was submitted ate, is incomplete, has no purchasing docs and the drawings don't meet specs, floor plan is not an accurate tracing, rack doesn't label ethernet ports directly and has no jumpers at all. 0 Logged in four sessions, most typed at last minute was JJJJJJ... 0
0.5 0

0
60489 C
72.6 82 20 12 Resubmit is somewhat improved, isn't a polished document. Original was Docked 5 points for late submit under door, and unacceptable as submitted. Floorplan is printed too small to be useful, has lots of drops missing, misses spec for curved corners on drops. The rack is very sloppy, is ambiguous about IP assignments, is a mess of square lines, is useless as drawn. None of the purchase orders are in the required form, and summaries have obvious errors in addition. Check the good-looking samples posted and make yours look like them if you want to redo this. 5 SFTP to move framework components is OK, so is moving images, please use command line and vi for next steps 3
14 15

13 Good use of Bootstrap, lots of validation errors in the html, mobile-first scheme works on larger browser fine
61728 A
89.8 101.5 14.5 20 All is clear and useful, summaries, purchase orders are neatly done, appear reasonable, would be easy to touch up in a meeting. Diagrams are clearly drawn, useful. I'd suggest pulling all the blue drop wires inside the premises, also the red dmarc extensions should come inside at the rear of the warehouse near the dmarc shed. 5
3
18 18 10
13 Pages don't validate and are not mobile-friendly. Also they break whaat should be a spec but isn't yet: Use tables for tabular data ONLY! Do NOT use tables to lay our pages. We have divs and semantic page elements to lay out pages in HTML5 and CSS3!
63273 B
79.6 90 16 19 Nicely detailed floorplan's drops and Telecomm outlets are almost impossible to see as printed, appear accurately placed, missing a couple printers' jacks. Missed spec for curved corners on drops, these blend into the walls. The rack appears accurately jumpered, some labels are ambiguous pointing at the left side of the chassis and not the ethernet jacks as spec'd. Purchasing docs are neatly assembled and have requested summaries. 3 Pasted Unicode in where assignment was to edit Files with vi and avoid desktop editors. 3 Outline is way too much on development of the tech where the assigned topic is about tech marketplace 17 13 10 Thanks for actual charts in the refs, where the brief was more descriptive, could have used more facts like these to describe this long tango of tech 9 Not valid, not mobile friendly, does use semantic markup appropriately
63783 B
86.3 97.5 14.5 20 Only suggestion to offer is to move the ip assignment callouts on the rack to the other side so it doesnt create so many crossed lines over the jumpers. This is a fine piece of work, crystal clear, has all required parts, would be easy to correct the draft in a meeting. 5 Make sure to put ZM in a market context, find other proprietary approaches... 3 Thanks for digging up a new competitor for my favorite open-source app 13 17 10
15 Broke the RWD tute, IMHO, doesn't quite validate, scores as mobile-friendly, should let text spread out to maybe 640 px width, not lock it down to mobile width and leave 2/3 of the page bank on big browser, IMHO
67663 B
80.8 91.25 11.75 17
5 Put it there quickly, got all specs 1 No well-developed outline, has pasted unicode and html into what should be a plain, ascii text file, edited with vi 14.5 17 10 Thanks for this, is what was ordered, about leaders in the market\ 15 Novel, simple css works entirely with semantic page layout elements to get good looking page, valid, mobile-friendly
68880 B
83.2 94 18 15 The summary of upfront costs is not the summary by supplier that was requested, is only a re-listing of details from purchase orders. Good looking drawings need some work. There are no drops drawn on the floorplan and several are missing for networked printers. The rack is a valiant attempt and appears jumpered and labelled accurately, uses VisioCafe to good advantage -- but equipment is in the racks backwards. Switches and patch panels face the front and ethernet ports on servers are almost always on the rear. Check out the best of the sample drawings and fix yours for a good-looking piece for your portfolio. Marked Way Late. 5
3
16.5 14.5 10 I need me some of this tech, maybe next thing this summer 12 Page breaks as it squeezes from tablet to mobile size. It doesn't test as mobile-friendly. Lots of validaation errors.
69237 A
91.8 103.75 18.75 20 Dead-on, all rings true quickly, appears effortless, some would pull the drops the way you've drawn them, I'd run them along walls as a thicker bundle labelled CAT6 Bundle and 'pigtail' off it with the drops, less moving the ladders, fewer pulls... 5
3 Not a well-developed outline, no subtopics to indent or demo semantic markup, sparse refs, appears on-topic 18 20 6 Kinda didn't get the idea of 'marked up original references', does address market shares and competition but I've got no idea where the original ref is, which shoud be in my hand 13 Good looking site but isn't mobile-first or responsive, kinda breaks at tablet size. HTML isn't valid. It is a clear demo of semantic markup. Good looking. It does break with my 'deluminate' filter used to put black backgrounds and grey text, make the nav buttons disappear when hovered over...
69345 A 10.0 85.0 96 15 19.5 The summary of upfront costs is not the summary by supplier that was requested, is only a re-listing of details from purchase orders. Good looking drawings need some work. There are no drops drawn on the floorplan and several are missing for networked printers. The rack is a valiant attempt and appears jumpered and labelled accurately, uses VisioCafe to good advantage -- but equipment is in the racks backwards. Switches and patch panels face the front and ethernet ports on servers are almost always on the rear. Check out the best of the sample drawings and fix yours for a good-looking piece for your portfolio. Marked Way Late. 5 Logs show quick, effective effort ahead of deadline 3 No well-developed outline for a demo of semantic markup, appears on topic, my next purchase will be a Galaxy S7, about $200... 18.5 20

15 Bootstrappy, good looking, validates. I suggest making the text wider on wider devices, it stays phone-sized on a bigger browser...
72784 A
89.4 101 15 17 Floorplan has walls inacurately drawn in several places, isn't an accurate tracing of the drawing provided, although I do note care in placement of some details, like dimensions. Wall jacks are placed where jumpers will be pulled across the office or around the corners, shelves are missing, not placed as in the drawing. The rack is not accurately jumpered and ehternet port/IIP assignments are ambiguous. On the printed copy, black jumpers drawn across black faceplates makes them hard to see, the DMZ doesn't have enough ports or jumpers. The purchasing docs are neatly prepared, appear reasonable, would be easy to fix in a meeting. 5 Enjoy bootstrap, those flags are OK... 3
16.5 19.5 10
15 Simple CSS based on semantic elements works fine, looks fine, validates, and scores as mobile-friendly
79547 F
0.0 0


0
0




0
80092

51.3 58 17

4 Pulled together project quickly, pasted UniCode into Files 2 Not a well developed outline, no references 12
10
13 Missed spec for left-justified content. Good use of Bootstrap, demos semantic markup. HTML gets validation errors.
85670 A
99.1 112 20 20 Good-looking floorplan, would only suggest thickerer connector for bundles of CAT6, labelled as such, with thinner drops peeling off it to the jacks, would look more like CAT6, where yours could be coax. Rack is clear. Do another with VisioCafe shapes for everything, front/rear views, would show up better. Purchase orders have some wildly extravagant choices, like tapes, that could be easily fixed in a meeting 5 I been obsessing on 'mine eyes have seen' for a week and here it is in ascii chars, always moving! 3
19.5 19.5 10 Thanks for wringing out the trade rags, good to see 15 Fine adaptation of the RWD tute, kept it valid and responsive
88338 B
83.2 94 18.5 13 Resubmit was improved, docs and summaries complete, drawings are a mess relative to most I see, please practice with this stuff, make it look more like the best of the samples, uncluttered, cearly labelled. Original was Late, Not acceptble, incomplete drawings, purchasing docs are indeciperable, scattered all over way too many pages. 5
3
14 15.5 10
15 Lightweight, stylish Bootstrapper, clear demo of semantic markup, validates, mobile-friendly. Stretched, distorted images detract from a more pro appearance
91156 D
55.1 62.25 12.75 0 Not acceptable: Rack doesn't identify ip assignments as spec'd, lots is ambiguous, lotw of crossed lines. Floor plan has no drops, is missing major features, is clear there is no idea of what goes on in the warehouse. Neat set of purchase orders of dubious provenance, none of the summaries required. 5
3
7.5 9.5 10 Printed a lot more than needed, also has useful facts about this very current topic 14.5 Sinple CSS works, validates, scores mobile-friendly. Abuses h-tags by skipping levels, _style_ these to be the size you like, don't abuse them
97762 A
89.6 101.25 18.5 19 Rack is printed too small to be useful, appears like it might be accurate, is sloppy in appearance with 6 differently shaped red lines used to callout IP assignments, are ambiguous on the DMZ. It's PCU/ATS, not PED/ATS. The floorplan is accurately traced and drawn, would suggest thicker bundle with drops peeling off, either made by pusing the drops together like you've attempted, or by drawing a thicker bundle, yours aren't consistenly drawn or spaced, detracts from a more pro look, as does extra kinks in drops and jumpers. The purcashing docs appear reasonable, are well put together with requested summaries. 5
3 Appears on target 16.25 15.5 9 OK summary of historical and descriptive refs, short the kind of market facts requested 15 YAN RWD tute, valid, mobile-friendly, responsive
98541 B
84.5 95.5 17 20 Well put-together set of docs and drawings, all very clear and usable as printed. 5
3 Please dig up facts about # of units, market shares, isn't apparent from your outline or references 9.5 16 10 Wish you and the other guy had dug up more like the article you both used 15 YAN RWD tute, valid, mobile-friendly, responsive
98667 B
88.9 100.5 18 15 Not acceptable: Purchase orders are missing the 'each' column so are difficult to interpret, each has been inappropriately replaced with 'Payment' where all have 'one time' Please see the sample docs in the good-looking examples posted with the project. The floorplan is printed too small to be useful, isn't accurately traced, attention to some details is appreciated. The rack misses the spec for curved corners on jumpers and appears accurately drawn. 5
3 Looks heavy on tech, Babbage was 'clockwork' computer, might want to start with ENIAC? Make sure to cover peers in this market, their shares of it... 19 17.5 8 Is not on target, is all history and descriptive doesn't identify a market, leaders, or shares 15 Really simple mobile-first css based entirely on semantic page layout, validates, is responsive enough
99754 B
81.2 91.75 13.75 17 Well put-together purchasing docs appear reasonable, would be eacy to fix up in a meeting, has requested summaries, Rack appears accurately drawn and labelled, lack some 'polish' seen in others, might want to revisit jumpers to make them all the same-styled curves, and place connection points uniformly on the servers so the ehternet ports are all drawn the same. The floorplan is a good attempts, but has desks where shelving units should be and has left out some walls, has shipping and receiving benches outside on the middle of the loading dock, all hard to see on the boss' ugly sketch. Is not an accurate tracing. It doesn't terminate drops in the walls with Telecomm symbol as demo'd and spec'd. 5
3 All the topic outline entries showed as samples have outline entries of one line each, indented to show subtopics. Please learn what an outline is, yours is more like a short essay... 14.5 14.5 10
14 Validation errors detract from an otherwise exemplary adaptation of RWD tute, is mobile-friendly, responive, clear demo of semantic markup