For Assignment 1:3 in unit one, we had to pick a term and then write a parenthetical definition, sentence definition and an expanded definition for it. I picked the term “honeypot” and my peer review partner was Jojo.
When I first approached the assignment, I felt that it was quite challenging. It was difficult for me to discuss a term that I knew to a non-technical audience. I had to use simple words instead of technical terms. Not only did this feel challenging to me, but the use of multiple methods for the expanded definition was also difficult. It was tough choosing which methods to use as not all methods could be applied to my term since they may confuse readers on the definition of honeypot if used improperly.
In the end, I decided to use the methods: etymology, history, required conditions, and operating principles. I believed that these were the best methods since computer science terms are usually operated with specific requirements and constraints. Furthermore, the history and etymology methods are useful because it gives background as to how honeypot was conceived. My approach to this assignment was to keep it as simple as possible. This made the assignment much more challenging to me because often I would want to use technical terms. Although they were simple technical terms, they were still technical terms. I ran into the same problem when I was trying to choose a visual. Most examples that I found online had many technical terms. I did not realize that it would be this difficult when writing to a non-technical audience.
When I completed my assignment, I thought I did a good job keeping things simple. However, Jojo pointed out that I was still too technical by not explaining in-depth in my example and using the technical term “vulnerability”. I did not realize that non-technical readers would not understand the term “vulnerability”. When I was writing that part, the term naturally came to me because it is a term often used in computer science. I did not feel the need to use a synonym to replace it. Thankfully, Jojo caught the mistake for me. It is interesting how I pointed out how she was using technical terms in her assignment without explaining them, but I failed to notice that I was doing the same.
Besides being too technical in my definition, she also suggested that I re-arrange my sections in the expanded definition. Initially, I had the order: etymology, history, required conditions, and operating principles. It seemed logical to first introduce the background of honeypot before diving into what conditions are needed for it to operate. However, I did not realize that my history section focused solely on the milestones of the development of honeypots and not a true background explaining its origins. Hence when Jojo first read it, she had trouble understanding what a honeypot was. Following her suggestions, I re-arranged the sections so that the order is now: etymology, operating principles, required conditions, an example and then the history of honeypots.
I chose to add an additional section to provide an example to further explain what a honeypot is. Jojo suggested to further elaborate on my example of the honeynet, but I felt the need to have an example focused solely on a honeypot instead of a variation of a honeypot. This example essentially puts together the information obtained from previous sections and pulls it together to solidify understanding. The example section provides further insight into what the operating principles and required conditions are.
When peer reviewing Jojo’s assignment, I noticed that she was focused on providing examples in any way possible. This was helpful when trying to understand her term, “network protocol”. However, it led to her using multiple technical terms. Since I am a computer science student, I understood everything, but to a non-technical reader, it would be difficult to understand. Her organization stood out to me as each section flowed well into the other. It seems that Jojo conveyed her term better than I did by manipulating the organization of her assignment and using plenty of examples. My assignment lacked in those areas as I was more focused on using simple terms.
The peer review part of this assignment proved helpful in understanding my weaknesses when trying to convey to a non-technical audience. I failed at considering the organization of my assignment and was careless even when trying to avoid using technical terms. Although I revised my definitions multiple times, I did not catch the errors Jojo did. In future assignments, I will make sure to look at them with a wider lens to view it from a reader’s perspective. Not only did I discover my weaknesses, but this assignment also allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of how my peers write. Jojo’s style of writing differed from mine where we had a different focus when trying to convey to a non-technical audience. It seems by having a different focus, it can change a person’s writing. I learned a lot from this assignment and look forward to applying my obtained knowledge into future assignments.
My revised definition can be found here: Blog/Word Document and Jojo’s review of my definition can be found here: Peer Review