Group Report

Group information:

  • Name: Riot
  • Date: Friday June 13th 2014
  • Project Name: Draughts

Group members:

  • Project Manager – Micah
  • Programmers – Arielle, Jonah
  • Computer Graphic Artists – Allan
  • Technical Writer – Micah
  • Testers – Micah, Allan

Game Description:Draughts is our spin on the classic game of checkers. We have the regular two-person mode, and we have also created a four-person mode. The four player version has the same rules as the two player version does, and as always the last person with any pieces on the board is declared the winner.

Testing Results:

  • Date: Monday June 16th 2014
  • Tester: Tania Passfield – Computer Science Teacher
  • Features tested; 4-player mode, 2-player mode (BETA; pre-GUI), Main Menu, Instruction screen
  • The 4-player version worked as it was supposed to, the 2-player version was confusing with the coordinates.
  • The 4-player version was easy to use but the 2-player version was a strain.
  • Yes it appeals to our target audience; the games are fun and interesting.
  • Yes the tester would use the program if it was made available to them.
  • To improve the game the tester recommended we implement a GUI for the 2-player mode to make it more user-friendly.
  • There are no areas of the program that require upgrading or reworking.
  • To make version two of the application better we would need more time to add more things to the game. Also, a greater knowledge of Netbeans and what can be done with that IDE would improve efficiency.

Project Management:

  • The actuality of our assignment did not hit all of the dates set by the project plan, but it hit the final dates which is what matters to me. With programming, there are many unexpected errors and difficulties that come up. As long as our group was working hard, as project manager I was ok with pushing back a few deadlines because I knew our programmers would make up lost ground later.
  • The completed software met all of the user requirements for the main games; however we did not get time to successfully implement our “Witty Box”.
  • Our successes came in hard work and communication. We worked well as a group to help out each other as needed, but we all knew what our role was and worked hard in that role.
  • Difficulties came in time limits, and combining the programs. We felt very crunched for time at the end, and it was also problematic getting the different parts of the game together.
  • I would have looked more into the functionality of NetBeans and JFrames before starting. I learned a lot about how it worked, but it took valuable time to learn that.