Week 9: Thesis Draft Feedback

Overview

Submitted the full thesis draft on 3/29. Camila left written comments on Google Docs on 3/30. Overall positive: the concept is clear, the structure is solid, and the ending is strong. The main revision direction is to deepen the personal/memory layer throughout, especially in early chapters, and not let the writing lean too heavily on technical process.

Professor Camila Morales - Written Feedback (3/30)

Abstract

Concept and positioning are clear. “You position the work really well and your concept is clear.”
Revise the first sentence for clarity. Suggest starting with the thesis question, then saying something like “for this I curated an archive that uses 3D Gaussian Splatting to place viewers in them.” (Directional, not exact wording.)
“Whether” should become “whether or how” — the thesis explores not just if spatial memory can be preserved and shared, but how.

Ch3: Building the System (3.1 First Scan to Archive)

Overall well organized.
First prototype (Nankunshen) needs more memory, less pure tech. “I think what could be interesting is to speak of your first prototype, where you were in the room and selected objects in your…”
Speak more about the memory itself. “Is it just the physical place you remember, is it the quality of light you spoke of before on our 1:1 or is it about the memories of visiting it with your family.”
First scan should connect place and memory to the technical aspects, not just document the pipeline.

Ch4: Refining the Experience

Good start overall. “Overall, this is a great start.”
Expand on UX/UI layout. “I would recommend speaking about the UX/UI of the layout of the piece. How one is onboarded, how the memories are…” (comment cut off, but direction is clear: describe the viewer’s journey through the interface more thoroughly.)

Ch5: Future Work (5.2)

Very positive response. “Wow what a great ending to your work. This has so much potential. I really think you are on to something really powerful in creating a tool for storytelling and more than archiving it is about cultural heritage as an individual, as a community. Really spectacular discover!”

Key Takeaways

Technical writing needs a memory layer. Every time the draft describes a technical step (scanning, training, loading into UE), it should also say why that place matters and what the memory connection is.
Nankunshen paragraph is the biggest revision target. Currently reads as a pipeline walkthrough. Needs to become: why this temple, what I remember about being there, and then how 3DGS preserved that.
Abstract reframe. Start from the question (“whether or how”), then describe the archive as the method.
Ch4 UX/UI expansion. The onboarding flow, carousel layout, and transition design need more description as design decisions, not just features.
Ch5 is strong as-is. The future work section landed well. Cultural heritage framing resonated with Camila.

Revision Plan

Rewrite abstract first sentence, change “whether” to “whether or how”
Expand 3.1 Nankunshen paragraph: add personal memory, why this place, the feeling of standing inside
Review all of Ch3 for places where memory context can be added alongside technical steps
Expand Ch4 with UX/UI discussion: onboarding flow, carousel layout, how the viewer navigates
Address remaining TODOs from Week 8 (WIP language in 4.2, development language in 5.2)