Thanks everyone. The feedback is much appreciated and won't be taken the wrong way - the reason for posting this is because the team knew it wasn't quite right, but needed some help seeing how it looks to someone unfamiliar with the team.
I agree there is a lot going on there right now, and the suggestions provided will give some concrete ideas to the students on how to make it more reader-friendly.
To answer some questions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag
The 21,000 "meeting hours" figure doesn't seem quite right, along with many of the other "hours" figures. Do you perhaps mean, people-hours? Given that there's only 8760 hours in a calendar year, the 21,000+ meeting hours figure would imply that your team does robotics every minute of every day, and absolutely nothing else (including sleep).
|
I wasn't involved in creating this figure, but I think you are right that the students meant people-hours. We'll talk about why the current wording is confusing and misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag
Is the school name spelled out anywhere?
|
Not yet... but it will be in the next version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag
The >100,000 members of the local community number sounds pretty large. Not to diminish anyone's efforts, but how many of these 100,000 people who have been exposed to FIRST by your team have really taken something meaningful from it?
To me, the poster comes across like your team is trying too hard to win Chairman's, which actually does have a criterion of measurable specific impact (which your poster also includes).
|
Yes, the reason they put these kinds of numbers on the poster is because multiple people, including Chairman's judges, wanted more data.
I also struggle with how to quantify which people any team has exposed to
FIRST have actually taken something meaningful from it. I really don't know the right answer to it. Maybe splitting out the small events the teams has run from the multiple 100,000+ person events the team has presented at is the best way to explain it clearly.