Date	20/9/10
Away	-
Agendas Raised	Today Jun showed us the demo he was working on. Below are some picture of the types of curves and in his blog is some more detailed pictures. He demo was great to see a lot of our ideas being represented graphically. The demo works well for the time being but with more tweaking and adjustments this demo and concept will become much more powerful and better looking for the end result we are looking for.
Things to look into further	·         Adjustment of the demo ·         More technical diagrams
Tasks assigned to individuals	·         Jun – use his demo in win form, within the user interface ·         Phil – work on his demo ·         Jernej – will get his sketches of the use case and activity diagrams into to rational rose ·         Allen – more work on the class diagrams and the activity diagrams ·         Tim – look into the code done by Jun, get a better understanding of the code and more technical manual work
What should be done by next meeting	By the next meeting the technical manual should be starting to get a move on. Focus will now be on the technical manual mainly because what we have done so far is due by the end of semester
Summary	The demo shows today helps give everyone an understanding of the direction we are aiming. Now before we take this demo and really get into the programming we will wait and see how Phil’s demo works. Then with theses two demo we will chose which is best or possibly even use the best from each demo

Date	17/09/10
Away	-
Agendas Raised	How much detail should the technical manual include without being redundant How Jun and Phil are going with their demos Which technical diagram should be done first. I.e start with use case then move onto other diagrams
Things to look into further	At the moment there isnt much to look into further because we are trying to get a base to work from with the demos that Jun and Phil are working on
Tasks assigned to individuals	Phil – again continuing with his demo, he feels like he is making some progess. Just came up with a better idea that incorporates all the ideas that have been raised during over group meetings Jun – again still continuing with his demo, he too is making progress and giving it his full attention while he can Allen – will elaborate on the class diagram he did early in the session by adding more detail to it. He will also do a rough overview use case of the system Jernej – is going to do use case and activity diagrams on a few of the basic functionality within or programs user interface Tim – will add descriptions to the diagrams created by Jernej is a table format.
What should be done by next meeting	Hopefully most of the above tasks are completed by our next meeting and the technical manual is under way and starting to take shape.
Summary	Overall everyone knows what they are required to do and are willing to do it while they can put it as their main focus. This are moving forward in terms of documentation however for the program a lot hinges on which demo we decide to use out of Jun and Phil's.

Mondays Metting

Date	13/9/10
Away	Jernej
Agendas Raised	Adding some features to the program such as ·         The possibility of allowing two ends of the rope to join ·         Generate a random knot so a user can undo this knot ·         Adding a friction factor to the different types of textures with ropes ·         How to possibly store the knots, either within a database or a simple text file Besides these Luke raised another idea of how to represent the string within the program. Instead of having a set length of string at the start the user can then draw the string by clicking and dragging. A similar principle to rope being pulled out of a role of string.
Things to look into further	·         Luke’s idea of implementation ·         Advantage of stroing the knots within a database or a simple text file
Tasks assigned to individuals	Jun ·         Continuing on his example which will focus on the collisions Phil ·         See if looks idea of how to represent the string is possible. For now he will only look at it in a 2D sense and not worry about the collisions Allen ·         System architecture Tim ·         Technical Documentation ·         Exploring ideas and technical diagrams
Summary	From the new idea of how to represent a string raised by Luke, this has changed how we will approach the project now. His idea of having a user being able to essentially click and drag a string as if being pulled from a roll of string makes implementation possibly easier. Now we just have to explore this idea further as it seems to be a great idea in practice now it’s just a matter or trying to implement this.

Date	10/9/10
Absent	No one
Agendas raised	·         A few typos within the user manual
Thinks to look into further	-
What should be done by next meeting	·         Architectural overview of the system
Tasks assigned to individual users	·         Jun and Phil are still trying to get their examples going. This is taking time due to it being a difficult tasks and other subjects having assignments due which take up most of their time. ·         Allen will do an architectural overview of the system ·         Jernej will look more into the mathematical side of knots and see if he can gain an understanding and report back to the group ·         Tim will look into the technical documentation and get this started very soon.
Tasks completed	·         Jernej presented his finds on common types of knots that should/could be presented within our program
Summary	Overall things are moving but moving slowly due to other subjects requiring more attention. Jernej did a fair amount of research into types of knots to convey in the program. Most of his finding can be found in his blog. Phil an Jun are still trying to get a working example to see which one will be best to implement. Tim and Allen are slowly starting to work on the technical documentation. Sometime next week they plain to have the technical manual started with user case and other technical diagrams started and near completed.

Mondays Metting

Date	6/9/10
Absent	No one
Agendas raised	·         Time to start on the technical menu ·         Look to have the user manual 70 to 80 percent complete by the end of the week
Things to look into further	Nothing for the time being
What should be done by next meeting	·      The user manual should be around 70 to 80 percent complete by the next time we meet ·      Phil and Jun should be moving along with their examples, not finished but comfortably on their way to a complete example
Tasks assigned to individual users	Phill and Jun are still working on their examples of possible ways to model the main part of our program Allen – is going to look out the program from a hierarchial view. This means the layout of the whole program and possible ways to orgainised different classes Jernej – is looking into common knots. This common knots are what we hope to try and model within our program. He will gain a full understanding of these knots and the steps required to construct these knots. Tim – will add all the user interface stuff to the user manual. This includes the interface created by Jun and all the functionality related to it
Tasks completed	·         Everyone is happy how the user interface looks and the menu system behind it ·
Summary	Overall this was a fairly brief meeting because of the direction we take from here depends on which example from Phil and Jun is best for us to implement and continue with. Everyone is happy with the way the user interface looks and will work in relation to the user. The interface is simple and visually pleasing to any regular windows user. It isn’t over powering and is very basic but gives the user the options they would need to be able to complete a knot

Friday meeting

Today's meeting was primarily focus on getting Jernej up to date and Jun's work on the user interface.
Jun presented what he had done for  a possible user interface ( picture available in his blog) and what functions were available. The aim from here was then to see areas to improve, add or change this interface and then everyone has a firm idea of what we are aiming for.

Overall everyone was happy with the amount of effort Jun had put into this simple yet elegant design of a possible interface. There was discussion about the possible position of the toolbar, whether it was best suited for the top or off to on side or even allow users to move it as they wish which is possible in some programs such as Adobe Photoshop. In the end it was decided that giving the user the ability to move the toolbar was the best option, however it would load up with it on the right hand side.

From here discussion then moved to the actions that were available to the user. Jun had covered majority of the actions we wish to convey within our program. However from general discussion and brain storming it was felt that there needed to be a few more buttons for the user. These buttons include the ability to give the string some type of texture that the user feels is appropriate. Another option was for allowing objects to be inserted. This is for when a someone is trying to construct a particular type of knot that requires an object to serve its particular function. Another type of button required was a compare button, this allows the user to compare the knot they have created with the knot they are trying to create.

After this was settled talk about the user-ability began. This was more about whether the program should be mouse and keyboard based or mainly moused based. It was decided that everything can be done with the mouse however there will be shortcut keys for more power users. These short cut keys will exist but wont be required for a normal user to know to work the program.