Merge branch 'structure' into 'master'

Perform general cleanup

See merge request horlingsw/master-assignment-report!17

content/appendix_specifications.tex

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 %&tex
-\chapter{System Specifications}
+\chapter{System Requirements}
+This appendix gives an overview of all the system requirements for the Whiteboard Writer that defined during the Case Study.
+\autoref{tab:compare} gives an overview over which test correlates to which requirements.
+    \begin{table}
+        \caption{Correlation between system requirements and tests. A closed dot indicates a singular relation. An open dot represents a spread relation.
+        In other words, to meet a requirement atleast one test with a closed dot must pass or all tests with an open dot must pass.}
+        \label{tab:compare}
+        \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{graphics/compare_table.pdf}
+    \end{table}
     \begin{specification}
         \begin{enumerate}
             \setlength{\itemsep}{10pt}
@@ -9,8 +17,3 @@
         \end{enumerate}
     \end{specification}
 
-    \begin{table}
-        \caption{}
-        \label{tab:compare}
-        \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{graphics/compare_table.pdf}
-    \end{table}

content/introduction.tex

@@ -22,8 +22,6 @@
     However, the case study by Broenink and Broenink only covers the software side of a \ac{cps}.
     For this design method to be suitable for a complete design of \ac{cps} it must apply to the physical part of the system as well.
     
-    %%In this thesis, the proposed design method is applied and evaluated in the context of the physical part of a \ac{cps}.
-    %%This is done in a case study, where a \ac{cps} is designed from scratch.
 \section{Research Objective}
     \textcite{broenink_rapid_2019} present a case study in their paper, developing a software based control system following the \ac{ridm}.
     About the result of that case study they state that "this [case study] does not mean that the same techniques cannot be applied to the physical part of the system."
@@ -51,8 +49,6 @@
     The case study consists of a \emph{design process}, developing a \ac{cps} according to the \ac{ridm}.
     Based on the results of the design process, the \ac{ridm} is evaluated.
     However, there are a couple of steps required prior to the start of the case study.
-    %To perform the case study reproducible, it requires a design plan, a subject of design and a evaluation protocol.
-    %The \emph{design plan} is a refined version of the design method by \textcite{broenink_rapid_2019}, extended with a design method from \ac{se}.
     The first step is to produce a concrete \emph{design plan} based on the design method.
     The concrete design plan improves the evaluation of the design techniques.
     The design method is presented in an abstract form which leaves room for interpretation.
@@ -94,26 +90,17 @@
     the case study is executed.
     From the results of the case study I propose multiple improvements to the design method, not only for the physical part of \ac{cps} but also the cyber part.
 
-%\section{Notes on Terminology}
-%    Design method is a commonly-used notion throughout the different papers and research used in this thesis.
-%    \textcite{broenink_rapid_2019} refer to their design method as 'the methodology', which is to generic for this thesis.
-%    To ensure distinct terminology throughout this thesis, their methodology is named \acl{ridm} and is abbreviated as \acs{ridm}.
-%    The more concrete version of the design method that is tested in the case study, is referred to as the 'design plan'.
-%    The object or system that is going to be designed during the case study is referred as 'subject of design'.
-
 \section{Structure}
-    The overall structure of the study takes form of 8 chapters.
+    The overall structure of the study takes form of seven chapters.
     The first two chapters introduce the used design methods.
     \autoref{chap:background} gives a background of the \ac{ridm} and \ac{se} approach and how this is combined into the design plan.
     The design plan is presented in full detail in \autoref{chap:analysis}, where each step is explained.
 
-    \rrot{De rest van deze sectie is nog niet af!}
     The next three chapters cover the method, execution, and evaluation of the case study.
     \autoref{chap:case_method} is concerned with the methodology of the case study, introducing the subject of design and the evaluation protocol.
     \autoref{chap:case_experiment} documents the execution of the case study, showing the development during the design process.
     All the questions and observations that were administered by following the evaluation protocol during the case study are analysed in \autoref{chap:case_evaluation}.
     
-    The last three chapters will reflect on the design plan that is evaluated in this research.
+    The last two chapters will reflect on the design plan that is evaluated in this research.
     \autoref{chap:reflection} uses the evaluation results of the case study to reflect on the design plan in this thesis.
-    Based on these reflections, a number of improvements on the design is presented in \autoref{chap:improved_design}.
     And finally, the research is concluded in \autoref{chap:conclusion}.

graphics/compare_table.tex

@@ -46,16 +46,16 @@
         \draw (mytable.north west) --++ (60:\th);
         \draw (mytable.north east) ++ (60:\th) --([shift={(60:\th)}]mytable.north west);
 
-        \ct(mytable.north west,a,System Specification)
-        \ct(a,b,Small rectangle)
-        \ct(b,c,Perimiter)
-        \ct(c,d,Cable bot speed)
-        \ct(d,e,Triple Chars)
-        \ct(e,f,Tool Change)
-        \ct(f,g,Repeatability)
-        \ct(g,h,Linearity)
-        \ct(h,i,Writing)
-        \ct(i,j,Wiping)
-        \ct(j,k,Complexity)
+        \ct(mytable.north west,a,System Requirements)
+        \ct(a,b,1. Small rectangle)
+        \ct(b,c,2. Perimiter)
+        \ct(c,d,3. Cable bot speed)
+        \ct(d,e,4. Triple Chars)
+        \ct(e,f,5. Tool Change)
+        \ct(f,g,6. Repeatability)
+        \ct(g,h,7. Linearity)
+        \ct(h,i,8. Writing)
+        \ct(i,j,9. Erasing)
+        \ct(j,k,10. Complexity)
 \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{document}

report.tex

@@ -33,7 +33,6 @@
 \input{case_experiment}
 \input{case_evaluation}
 \input{reflection}
-\input{improved_design}
 \input{conclusion}
 
 \appendix