Online Survey App

Project Legacy

COP 4331, Fall, 2014

Team Name: Group # 2

Team Members:

• Kaan Arikan - kaan@knights.ucf.edu
• Adam Hollifield - ahollifield@knights.ucf.edu 
• Robert Montalbano - jazavac@knights.ucf.edu 
• Shawn Morrison - groundlevelcustoms@knights.ucf.edu 
• Cody Showers - cshowers@knights.ucf.edu 
• Franklin Yi - frankyi@knights.ucf.edu 

Modification history:

Roles

Concept of Operations

• Frank Yi: Frank came up with the basic requirements as described by the prompt provided by the client.  The outline was used to act as the basic framework for our design.  Also, he finalized the document. (90%)
• Adam Hollifield: Adam was able to input the bookmarks and also adjusted the formatting. (10%)

Software Requirements Specification

• Shawn Morrison: Shawn contributed by helping with internal links, content of documents, grammar checking, event tables, requirements section, and finalizing the document. (45%)
• Cody Showers: Cody contributed with the use case diagram, the template for formal definition of requirements, table of definitions, and finalizing the document. (45%)
• Adam Hollifield: Adam was able to input the bookmarks and also adjusted the formatting. (10%)

Project Management Plan

• Kaan Arikan: Kaan filled in information for the project overview, reference documents, applicable standards, QA, risk and filled configuration management sections, and deliverables table. (45%)
• Robert Montalbano: Robert contributed with the team organization, application functionality, and finalized the document. (45%)
• Adam Hollifield: Adam was able to input the bookmarks and also adjusted the formatting. (10%)

High Level Design

• Adam Hollifield: Adam wrote design issues, created architectural diagrams, interface descriptions and finalized the document. (100%)

Detailed Design

• Adam Hollifield: Adam did the issue relevance expansion and finalized the document. (25%)
• Cody SHower: Cody contributed with the elaboration do the design tradeoff. (20%)
• Shawn Morrison: Shawn contributed with the sequence diagrams. (20%)
• Robert Montalbano: Robert contributed with SRS tables, sequence tables, and the class diagram. (20%)
• Frank Yi: Frank helped with the elaboration of the design issues. (15%)

Code

• Adam Hollifield: Adam contributed with being able to login/logout, creating accounts, hashing, and selecting surveys.  He also setup and configured the database system. (45%)
• Cody Showers: Cody contributed with taking the survey and not being able to take a survey more than once. (20%)
• Shawn Morrison: Shawn contributed with updating the profile once the user input the information as well as the drop down boxes to choose profile options. (15%)
• Robert Montalbano: Robert contributed with viewing the results after a survey is done with graphs. (20%)

Documentation

• Adam Hollifield: Adam set up the github account to organize the code and any updates that were made to the code. (50%)
• Frank Yi: Frank help set up meetings locations and helped keep track of meeting notes. (25%)
• Kaan Arikan: Kaan set up the google drive account to help keep track of all documents. (25%)

Quality Assurance

• Adam Hollifield: Adam helped with the testing of the system, helped with fixing and taking notes for documentation. (40%)
• Shawn Morrison: Shawn helped with the testing of the system, helped with fixing and errors that were found. (20%)
• Robert Montalbano: Robert helped with the testing of the system. (20%)
• Cody Showers: Cody helped with the testing of the system. (20%)

Final Deliverables

• Adam Hollifield: Adam contributed by designating  each team member in regards to the deliverables. He also wrote the test results part of the deliverable. (30%)
• Shawn Morrison: Shawn wrote the user’s manual part of the deliverable. (20%)
• Robert Montalbano: Robert helped write the user’s manual part of the deliverable.  (10%)
• Kaan Arikan: Kaan wrote the build instruction part of the deliverable. (20%)
• Frank Yi: Frank wrote the project legacy part of the deliverable.  (20%)

Analysis

• Assessment of the Quality of the Final Product: The survey application works just as described on the Android platform, and was proven in the demonstration in class. The user is able to create a unique profile and take a survey only once.  The user is then able to see the results of the survey via a graph.  The information such as the profile and survey results are stored in the database.
• Recommended Use of the Final Product: Anyone that wants to take specific surveys and see the information are able to use this application. Once the survey is taken, the user will be able to see the results for that particular survey.  
• Known Problems: When hitting the back button, it will always take the user back to the previous page even if they have just taken the survey.  Also, the user has to hit back all the way to the home page to log out.  Once a user takes a survey, they are unable to undo the survey answer if they hit the wrong answer.  If the user if not connected to a network, the app will crash.  If a user exits the create account early, the user will have a “null” gender, age, and education level.  
• Adherence to Project Plan: Our group did well when it came to following the guidelines provided by the project plan. We met every week, went over code and documentation, and submitted all deliverables on time that were required by the professor. We met all the criteria from the project plan that was required. However, we did not have the time to do the optional parts for the app.
• Defect Analysis: Defects came in with the coding. Coding was the hardest part of this planning and designing phase. Many defects were found while testing the app and were fixed when they were found.  One example was that the interface would look skewed when going into landscape.  The easy fix was to block landscape from occurring when flipping the screen to landscape.  
• Quality Assurance: The testing activities were very sufficient.  Whenever there were any issues with the project, we spoke about the issue as a team to solve any particular issue.  Our timeline was very close to our estimate and all of our deliverables were submitted on time.
• Configuration Management: The configuration management went very well and were able to have consistency throughout  the deliverables, presentation, and the coding.  
• Suggestions for the Future: Suggestions of improvement of the technical process of our project are getting members that specialize in certain areas, create a better user interface, and add more features. Staying in close communication with the TA’s and professor is something we could have done better.  With better planning and specific detail from the beginning, the project itself could have been a bit smoother as well.