Kyle Judy; 4/30/2025

For this design journal, I'm going to review the previous one. Since I just wrote it.

1. Are your sketches and notes detailed enough for you to recall your original thoughts and feelings about the object, design, or problem?

Of course, I just wrote it! Nonetheless, I think my prose on the subject works perfectly sufficiently to explain the issue and the proposed solution.

1. What phase(s) of the Design Process are explored in your original sketch and notes?

This is pretty clearly in the early idea-generating phase. Most thoughts on programs and whatnot start with a nagging issue. With Free Software, like graphviz, you have the power to make the change. This is what inspires me to use it so much, it's all about empowering the user. Anywho, one could also make the argument that the reviewing existing solutions portion is also here, as I mention HTML and it's wonderful class="" styling.

1. What engineering topics (such as Design for Manufacturing, Heat Transfer, Statics, so on) are involved in understanding this object or problem?

Being a software project, graphviz is exempt from much of the standard mech-e focused topics stated above. However, this does not mean that there is no engineering going on in my proposal. For the simple fact that the graphviz DOT language supports all of the syntax I used. style{} is a sub-object of digraph{}, and so implementation wouldn't be too hard. I really designed my proposal around ease of implementation.

1. What is a test, experiment, or design iteration that you would do to explore this object or problem further?

Why, I'd attempt implementing it. As far as I can tell there hasn't been any work done on patching graphviz to add this functionality, so I might give it a go over the weekend, assuming I can parse what's going on with the source code.