Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

model.md doesn't seem targeted to teachers #307

Open
jbphet opened this issue Dec 15, 2020 · 14 comments
Open

model.md doesn't seem targeted to teachers #307

jbphet opened this issue Dec 15, 2020 · 14 comments
Assignees

Comments

@jbphet
Copy link
Contributor

jbphet commented Dec 15, 2020

From code review issue #286, specifically the item that says, "Does model.md adequately describe the model, in terms appropriate for teachers?"

In my opinion, this description as currently written seems targeted at developers rather than teachers. It describes specific source code files, ratio values that are never presented to users, and some sim-specific terminology that a user would not encounter. This is valuable information, but it should probably be moved into the implementation-notes.md file and the model.md be rewritten with something more general about what the sim does and why. I just looked at the model.md for the "Natural Selection" sim, and though it's way longer than would be needed for "Ratio and Proportion", I think it captures the idea of explaining the important ideas about what is shown in the sim without getting into how the sim does it. See https://github.com/phetsims/natural-selection/blob/master/doc/model.md.

@zepumph
Copy link
Member

zepumph commented Dec 15, 2020

Ahh, that distinction makes a lot more sense. Thanks. I will work on this.

@emily-phet
Copy link

I had no idea there were model notes targeted at teachers. I don't know that we actually tell anyone outside of PhET that this exists. The natural selection example is great!
Drafting this during the development process and having this be seen and discussed by the design team might be a great way to help designers better understand the current model as we go...what doesn't make sense in the drafted doc could be discussed for clarification, and the doc could be used for reference by designers without a related science background.

@zepumph
Copy link
Member

zepumph commented Dec 29, 2020

I also didn't realize the target audience of model.md.

Having this around during the design process is a very good idea! It sounds like the best people to review my changes for this issue would be designers. I'll ping you about it.

@zepumph
Copy link
Member

zepumph commented Jan 5, 2021

A large point here will be to discuss how the fitness is calculated based on "physical distance" or "hand positions" or "hand proximity" to the ratio. No on the mathematical closeness/distance between the current ratio and the target ratio. This handles edge cases like when the current ratio is at 0/0. Like in #288

@zepumph
Copy link
Member

zepumph commented Jan 26, 2021

@emily-phet, will you please give this a onceover and feel free to change anything you would like. https://github.com/phetsims/ratio-and-proportion/blob/master/doc/model.md#. Also feel free to close.

@emily-phet
Copy link

@zepumph This looks very close. I'd like Brett to work with you to make this one notch more specific, with an eye towards using plain language everywhere possible.

@zepumph can you share @BLFiedler a link to a few other examples, perhaps one from Chris and one from JB, and show @BLFiedler how to edit this markdown file (if he doesn't know).

@BLFiedler Can you take a look at the examples, and make some edits to the RaP version. Definitely discuss with @zepumph as needed for accuracy. Imagine a general teacher reviewing this, as well as someone like Clayton or a colleague of Dor's taking a look (e.g., someone who is not already familiar with Dor's proportion work, but savvy and will get the gist).

Let me know if you have any questions. I'm guessing Brett will be able to identify some areas where a little more detail or a little friendlier language would be helpful, if that's not the case I can hop on a call and be more specific about where I think some improvements could be made.

Now that I know this general audience model description exists, we should definitely cite in upcoming papers, so we'll want it to be in good shape for that!

@emily-phet emily-phet assigned zepumph and brettfiedler and unassigned emily-phet Feb 6, 2021
@zepumph zepumph removed their assignment Feb 8, 2021
brettfiedler added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 9, 2021
Tried my spin on it. Built on the scaffold @zepumph provided. Made in response to issue #307.

#307
@brettfiedler
Copy link
Member

Alright - gave it a shot! @zepumph, can you look over for accuracy? And I'll tag @emily-phet if she'd like to glance it over, but not assigning.

@brettfiedler brettfiedler assigned zepumph and unassigned brettfiedler Feb 9, 2021
zepumph added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 9, 2021
@zepumph
Copy link
Member

zepumph commented Feb 9, 2021

Looks really good. Thanks. A couple edits above. Feel free to edit as you wish and reverse any of them. Please close when you are done with the markdown.

@zepumph zepumph assigned brettfiedler and unassigned zepumph Feb 9, 2021
@brettfiedler
Copy link
Member

Looks good to me. I suppose I should remember in the future to shrink my window (widescreen monitor) when checking how the layout looks :)

@emily-phet
Copy link

Re-opening, assigning to me. I'd like to make some tweaks.

@terracoda
Copy link
Contributor

@emily-phet, have you made your tweaks?

@terracoda
Copy link
Contributor

terracoda commented Jul 29, 2022

Just asking as we head towards re-publication.

@zepumph
Copy link
Member

zepumph commented Aug 5, 2022

This does not block our release. @emily-phet will get to it as time permits.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants