Iteration 3 did not provide an interaction pattern. How did you approach designing this iteration?

• Everything we did started with a thorough conversation about high-level conceptual functioning and expectations of how the program should execute. This continued on to iteration 3 where we built out some of our ideas using Apple FreeForm as a visualization tool. It was very helpful to see things visually and then break down the functionality behind each idea into smaller steps. Myles had a great grasp of the functionality with the expectation of how our runner file would interact with the class we were establishing and I was able to understand what he was trying to accomplish before we even started writing code. Next we just needed to code in the functionality. It was sometimes easier to think about how the code would work before establishing all of the tests, but the tests help us fine tune the expectations we desired.

If you had one more day to work on this project, what would you work on?

• Iteration 4 functionality. We stopped short because we wanted to make sure everthing looked presentable and clean. This also involved a lot of refactoring to make the code more ledgible. It was really helpful writing comments and I learned that they are actually common practice. We already wrote some of our methods to be a bit more dynamic in anticipation of adapting for Iteration 4. We already have ideas as far as adjusting board size and making the computer a bit more "intelligent". I think ship varying the amount of ships would come somewhat quickly as well once we put some serious thought into it.

Describe the pairing techniques you used while working on this project.

• We started and then continued with a lot of paired work, implementing the Driver/Navigator technique. Toward the end we started to utilize the Ping Pong style more as we were touching up smaller things and making comments. Our communication was on point, probably over the top, but good for establishing expectations from each party, especially for a first paired project.

Describe how feedback was shared over the course of this project.

• We generally lobbed insults from a distance and hoped that the other person was just out of ear shot.

• We jest. We were very considerate of one another when talking about individual differences of style. We were both very amenable to adjustments and changes.

Jesse - On a personal note, I think Myles was patient with my understanding and constantly made sure I was tracking what we were writing and how we were doing it, why it was working the way it was etc. I feel like I learned a lot working with him and I'm grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Myles - Jesse was great to work with. He was very motivated to get the project done and make sure that it was done well. He was very clear about his understanding and took detailed personal notes to help keep track of some of the more complex logic. He then used those notes to add helpful commentary throughout the project. Top-notch stuff!