I think that there were both negative and positive elements to all three of the proposal plans presented.

I think that there are various strengths and weaknesses in the proposal for the feasibility study on a pedestrian tunnel. One strength is that the tasks are well thought out and very detailed. They tell the reader exactly what they plan to do in order to get their information. Also, their plan is well researched. However, I think that some of their methods are flawed. One weakness is that they only plan to survey 100 students on their opinion about the need for a pedestrian tunnel. They claim that the enrollment at Texas Tech is about 29,000, so I believe that more students should be surveyed. Additionally, surveying only those students at the University and Broadway crossing may skew the survey results. These students are actually crossing University, so they may be more inclined to say that a tunnel in necessary as opposed to students who may park on campus or cross the street to get to campus at a different location. Also, students may not take the time to fill out a survey if they are hurrying to get to class. I think that a better method would be to survey students at the student union when students will have more time, or survey students during class if a professor approves.

The second proposal is a proposal on improving food inspections of Lubbock restaurants. This proposal also has strengths and weaknesses. A strength of the proposal is that it gives a clear timeline for the tasks. However, I find this proposal confusing overall. First of all, the proposal is for improving food inspections of Lubbock restaurants. What exactly does that mean? In both the survey and the questionnaire, people are asked if the quality of their eating experience has improved in the past year. I do not see how asking someone about the quality of their dining experience relates to improving food inspections. People may say that their experience has improved but that does not necessarily mean that the food inspection has improved. I also think that giving the questionnaires about only low-performing restaurants is a weakness. A person’s impression of a restaurant has more to do with timeliness and service than with different health codes. Someone from the general public would probably not know just by eating at a place that a code is being violated. It may be a better tactic to have inspectors inspect these restaurants once before the new regulations are put into place and then maybe every three months to track the progress.

The third proposal is a proposal for the renovation of the intramural fields. I think that this proposal is fairly well though out and well organized. The steps of the proposal and the timeline are easy to follow. However, I think that there are some weaknesses to this proposal. First of all, I think that the timeline for this proposal is too strict. Most of the proposal steps are only given one to two weeks to be completed. Since this proposed project is being done outdoors, the team needs to account for things such as weather delays and give more time on their schedule for these things. Also, this plan never mentions why these renovations need to be done. There should be some type of research into whether these renovations are economically feasible and if they are needed at all. It seems like this is more like a process description than a proposal plan.

According to the Gestalt psychology, the mind recognizes patterns and wholes as more than the sum of their parts.  Designers use the Gestalt principles in many different ways.  These five design principles are balance, alignment, grouping, consistency, and contrast.  The Texas Tech IT department uses these principles in their bulletin.  Some of these principles are used effectively, while some could use improvement.

The first Gestalt design principle is balance.  Balance in a document creates a sense of stability.  Balance is created when the top and bottom of a document and the left and right sides of a document are weighted the same.  In my opinion, I do not feel like the IT bulletin uses balance very effectively.  The top of the document is very graphic-heavy, while the rest of the document is very text-heavy.  The bulletin does use a three column grid design, which is helpful.  However, the placement of graphics seems random and not balanced.  The different graphics are not aligned and lead the reader’s eye away from the text.

The second Gestalt principle is alignment.  Alignment is achieved by aligning information either horizontally or vertically on a page.  This helps a reader identify information either as a unit or as different levels of information.  The bulletin uses vertical alignment.

The third Gestalt principle of design is grouping.  Grouping means that items on a page that are near each other are seen as a unit.  Grouping is useful to break up information into smaller blocks that are easier to read.  Grouping is used in the IT bulletin by dividing the information into columns, using white space, and using headings. 

The fourth Gestalt principle is consistency.  Consistency is when the design features are consistent throughout a document.  Typefaces and sizes should be the same for headlines of similar importance.  Also, lists should be numbered is they are sequential and bulletted if they are non-sequential.  The IT bulletin uses both numbers and bullets for its lists.  However, the list that is numbered in not sequential, therefore, it should not be numbered.  It should be bulletted instead.

The fifth and last Gestalt design principle is contrast.  Contrast is used to make items in a document look different.  Contrast is used in the IT bulletin by using different colors for different items.  For example, the headings are in green, while the other items are written in black.  Also, the top part of the document has a green background, helping the white lettering stand out.

Overall, I think that the IT department did a good job of using the five Gestalt principles of design: balance, alignment, grouping, consistency, and contrast.  However, there is always room for improvement in document design, and some improvements could be made to this document.