Update README.md

phaseII/README.md

@@ -13,16 +13,18 @@ In addition, we obtained informal feedback from our software engineering (SE) te
 
 ## Findings
 
-From the cognitive walkthroughs, we obtained feedback on each step required to complete the scenario. Each step was analyzed using the two guiding questions, which yielded insights into our strengths as well as areas for improvement. The consensus was that our persona could navigate the app and accomplish her primary objective with relative ease; however, some features mentioned in the persona were not present in the wireframe. The scenario involved “Molly,” a 23-year-old runner looking for safe routes with low crime rates. Her steps toward achieving this goal were found to be clear and comprehensible. Nevertheless, certain features, such as specific crime types, time-based data, and historical information, were missing from the wireframe, which might impact a potential user in a similar situation. To give an example, Molly’s scenario had her checking crime analytics for her area, but our wireframe did not have that feature accessible at the time.
+From the cognitive walkthroughs, we obtained insights on each step required to complete the scenario. Each step was analyzed using the two guiding questions, which yielded insights into our strengths as well as areas for improvement. The consensus was that our persona could navigate the app and accomplish her primary objective with relative ease; however, some features mentioned in the persona were not present in the wireframe. The scenario involved “Molly,” a 23-year-old runner looking for safe routes with low crime rates. Her steps toward achieving this goal were found to be clear and comprehensible. Nevertheless, certain features, such as specific crime types, time-based data, and historical information, were missing from the wireframe, which might impact a potential user in a similar situation. To give an example, Molly’s scenario had her checking crime analytics for her area, but our wireframe did not have that feature accessible at the time.
 
 We also received valuable feedback from the SE team in response to our questions. When asked, “Based on our minimum viable product, what could be improved?” suggestions included disaggregating crime types, user reports, and showing the crime rate per capita for an area. When asked, “Were there any features you expected to find in the app or sketches but did not?”, the testers recommended color coding for different crimes, notes for areas with specific characteristics (such as tourist locations), crime type filtering, and accessible data on the most prevalent crime types. These answers gave us extra insight on what was missing from our project, covering areas that had been missed during our cognitive walkthrough. We got these suggestions early in the lifetime of our wireframes, allowing us to easily incorporate them into our design as we went forward. Suggestions like them were essential to refining the app experience and addressing the project’s existing shortcomings.
 
 ## Conclusions
 
-Through our findings, we identified what has been successful in the project thus far and areas in need of improvement. This phase of the project has not emphasized innovation or introducing new features; rather, the focus has been on refining what we have accomplished and making enhancements leading to our first prototype. Many of the questions we asked were guided by this approach. We learned that our initial wireframes provided a solid foundation and were generally well-received. However, certain essential elements, such as missing information and features, were highlighted through feedback from the SE team’s demonstration. Moving forward, we ensured that suggestions were incorporated to cover every relevant aspect in our wireframes, making certain that each feature mentioned in user personas and scenarios is both accessible and functional in our app. Feedback from outside our group has been especially valuable, as our intuitive familiarity with the project can sometimes obscure insights that external evaluators provide. We prioritized considering all feedback thoroughly and remained open to suggestions at each stage. It has been our goal for the last stretch of this section of the project to enhance and refine every bit of our project that we can before we move on to the next big step, the prototyping phase. With this feedback and the changes that we have made, our project is much more prepared to move forward into the final steps of the process.
+Through our findings, we identified what has been successful in the project thus far and areas in need of improvement. This phase of the project has not emphasized innovation or introducing new features; rather, the focus has been on refining what we have accomplished and making enhancements leading to our first prototype. Many of the questions we asked were guided by this approach. We learned that our initial wireframes provided a solid foundation and were generally well-received. However, certain essential elements, such as missing information and features, were highlighted through suggestions from the SE team’s demonstration. 
+
+From there, we ensured that suggestions were incorporated to cover every relevant aspect in our wireframes, making certain that each feature mentioned in user personas and scenarios is both accessible and functional in our app. Input from outside our group has been especially valuable, as our intuitive familiarity with the project can sometimes obscure insights that external evaluators provide. We prioritized considering all input thoroughly and remained open to suggestions at each stage. It has been our goal for the last stretch of this section of the project to enhance and refine every bit of our project that we can before we move on to the next big step, the prototyping phase. With this feedback and the changes that we have made, our project is much more prepared to move forward into the final steps of the process.
 
 ## Caveats
 
-Some limitations affected the potential findings and feedback we could gather. First, we only completed two walkthroughs, and this was considered fortunate, as many groups only received one. One of our walkthroughs was minimally helpful, providing only general positive feedback without much detail. Additionally, we only had one user persona available for the walkthrough, limiting feedback to a specific area of the project rather than its entirety. Although our informal feedback pool was larger, some opportunities were still missed. We posed three questions to the SE team, but only received responses to the first two due to time constraints. Any additional feedback beyond these sources would be highly beneficial, given the limiting circumstances around our research activities.
+Some limitations affected the potential findings and feedback we could gather. First, we only completed two walkthroughs, and this was considered fortunate, as many groups only received one. One of our walkthroughs was minimally helpful, providing only general positive input without much detail. Additionally, we only had one user persona available for the walkthrough, limiting input to a specific area of the project rather than its entirety. Although our informal feedback pool was larger, some opportunities were still missed. We posed three questions to the SE team, but only received responses to the first two due to time constraints. Any additional comments beyond these sources would be highly beneficial, given the limiting circumstances around our research activities.