Original Writing
For assignment 1:3 I wanted to write something I was interested in and is relatively complex. Initially, I wanted to write about machine learning but I realized it might be too technical for an audience without any technical background. So I decided on object-oriented programming, which is still technical but much better than machine learning. For the “analysis of parts” section, I wanted to divide the topic into four object-oriented principles but I quickly realized that the concepts are too technical and are only suitable for an audience with some technical background in object-oriented programming. Therefore, I wrote about the basic components of the definition and made it more friendly for the non-technical audience. I really liked the structure of writing many definitions, starting from easiest and with a gradual increase in depth. I especially found the parenthetical definition to be very informative as a reader.
Peer Review Process
Through the peer review process, I was able to learn from the strength of my partner’s definition and understand my weaknesses. Ben did an excellent job breaking down the components of the definition and explaining from the smallest component to the definition. The visuals presented early helped me understand the general idea of the definition before reading. As I was the reader/audience for the definition, I was also able to strengthen my writing skills by thinking from the reader’s perspective. Also, I found the topic of “binary search tree” to be too technical to audience without any technical background. For such term, there has to be some basic knowledge on data structure and programming, so I struggled to find a solution other than explaining the background knowledge before the explanation of the definition, which is going to be lengthy. Therefore, I assumed the reader has some basic knowledge of programming and data structure when giving the feedback.
Editing Process
Ben made very good points about placing visuals early in the definition and using less technical words for non-technical readers. I took his feedback and added an extra visual under sentence definition and added placed the visual examples above some sections. I believe this is easier to understand for the readers since the concepts are technical. Also, as Ben suggested, I removed some technical terms that could confuse the readers without a technical background.
Revised Peer Review: Jake Moh’s Expanded Definition of “Object Oriented Programming”