SOK ideas

[nitish chauhan]

Hi,
thanks sir, for your feedback & reviews.I had tried to rectify my mistakes.
link to my updated proposal according to your suggestions :-

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7HqST8hfydOR0g2b01Fb3JsTkU

please share your reviews.

regards,
Nitish Chauhan

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Emmanuel Charruau <echarruau at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Nitish,
>
>
> A few remarks. I am not english but if it is like in french you should
> avoid to put capital letters everywhere, it is disturbing (at least for me).
>
> The structure of the proposol is not good anymore.
>
> You should first spoke about an activity of questions and answer, describe
> the settings like you did, and then from this global description go to the
> multiplication, addition and soustraction activities.
>
> We know why it is like this as we saw the ideas evolutions, but somebody
> who read it for the first time would be surprised that you speak first
> about multiplication activity then about the global activity then back to
> maths.
>
> Confusing. The normal and network description is good :)
>
> Emmanuel
>
>
>
>
> 2016-10-20 21:48 GMT+02:00 nitish chauhan <nitish.nc18 at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>> I have updated my SOK proposal according to the suggestions made by
>> Johnny.
>> I have included other sub-Activities like Addition & subtraction along
>> with Tenses & verbs.
>>
>> link :- https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7HqST8hfydObm50cEJHNkFYWEE
>>
>> Please review it.
>>
>> thanks & regards,
>> Nitish Chauhan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:48 PM, JAZEIX Johnny <jazeix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/20/16 09:06, nitish chauhan wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi :) ,  after reading wonderful suggestions made by you all , I was
>>> able to understand these key points. Please correct me if I am going in the
>>> wrong direction.
>>>
>>> 1.) Instead of a single Activity(Multiplication Table), we are expanding
>>> to new sub activities under a single generic Base Activity.
>>>
>>>
>>> yes, for now we can consider that the base activity would be the
>>> multiplication one
>>>
>>> 2.) We will have separate DATASET for different sub activities like
>>> Multiplication Tables, Addition , Subtraction , Tenses , etc. in the Base
>>>    Activity.
>>>
>>>
>>> yes
>>>
>>> 3.) And in each sub-Activity to check the answer of a question we will
>>> call a method which will check the answer from the Dataset using
>>>  key,value pair concept(or Hashing) from the Base Activity.
>>>
>>>
>>> If we use the method of Emmanuel, all the datasets would be the same
>>> (list of {key, value}) and we won't have to have a specific check method on
>>> each dataset:
>>> we will have something like: if (field["3*7"] == dataset.get("3*7")) ok
>>> else not good.
>>>
>>> It's up to the person who create the dataset to be sure it's correct,
>>> there won't be any validation on our side.
>>>
>>> 4.) In this way expansion can be made easily.
>>>
>>> 5.) Also, I would like to know how many different sub activities we are
>>> planning to include.(like tables , add, sub , tenses. , etc).
>>>
>>> It's not really important for now, let's focus on just the mathematic
>>> ones (and create separate activities for each).
>>>
>>> Johnny
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Nitish Chauhan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:57 AM, JAZEIX Johnny <jazeix at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/19/16 21:19, Charles Cossé wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:14 PM, JAZEIX Johnny <jazeix at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is more on how to handle the different cases with the
>>>>> same base code. We should have a way to know if the data is good without
>>>>> having a lot of if(multiplication) check if (number 1 * number 2 = expected
>>>>> result) else if (addition) check if (number 1 + number 2 = expected
>>>>> result)...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi, just lurking on your list, but if I may suggest: just evaluate the
>>>> string expression and test whether true or false.  That works for all math.
>>>> -Charles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> feel free to comment whenever you want :).
>>>>
>>>> On my side I was more thinking on having a check method directly in the
>>>> dataset and in the main activity calls dataset.check(data1, data2). This
>>>> way we wouldn't have to modify the base activity.
>>>>
>>>> After talking with Emmanuel, he found a third solution which is we
>>>> don't care about the question and only check the result which is stored in
>>>> the dataset:
>>>>
>>>> [ { "3*7": "21" }, { "it go": "es" }, { "I go": ""}  ... ]
>>>>
>>>> This way we can do a completely abstract questionnaire activity.
>>>> Dataset/Questions would be created via an interface and we can think of a
>>>> way of displaying either a menu like for lang or generating new activity on
>>>> the fly (which may be better as we can categorize them in the section and
>>>> search them using the search feature).
>>>>
>>>> Johnny
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/gcompris-devel/attachments/20161021/788fc030/attachment-0001.html>