Rationale
The slinky example is gender-neutral and age-neutral. It works as a physics analogy but makes no effort to connect to the target demographic. There is nothing here a 19-year-old female college student relates to more than anyone else.
Fix
Reframe the example around a scenario from the audience's life. The slinky interactive can stay as the manipulable element, but the framing text and any scene-setting illustration should ground it in something relatable. A hair elastic being stretched and bunched, a crowded vs. empty lecture hall, a group text where everyone replies at once vs. silence.
Citation
dashboard feedback "I would like them to be more geared towards female college students." inverse-related feedback "Instead of a blue boxy car maybe have a bright pink convertible or something more realistic."
Rationale
Language is clear and supportive. "Think of a slinky" is approachable. "Where coils bunch together: compression" is clean. Not condescending. Minor gap: "medium" is used without definition on the concept tab, which could confuse a true beginner.
Fix
Add a parenthetical or nutshell dropdown for "medium" on its first appearance. Something like "a medium (any material sound can travel through, like air, water, or tissue)."
Citation
acoustic-waves feedback "What's a medium? The middle... sound waves need a middle what? Cannot travel through a vacuum? Like, to clean with?"
Rationale
The concept tab introduces the big idea cleanly: two alternating zones, here's what each one is. The two colored boxes are effective. Loses a point because "medium" is assumed knowledge, and the particle visualization (Visual tab) is thrown at the student as a dense grid of dots with C/R labels that are not immediately self-explanatory.
Fix
Define "medium" (see A2). On the particle visualization, label the C and R markers with full words "Compression" and "Rarefaction" rather than single letters. A first-time student seeing "C" and "R" under a particle grid has to mentally map those back to the concept tab.
Citation
acoustic-waves general "We're not starting off with a concept, we're starting off with a dictionary." The principle: assume no prior knowledge at any point in the card.
Rationale
Tabs show Concept → Example → Visual → In Ultrasound → Quiz. That matches the required flow. No Cover tab or Self-Sort tab visible, but Cover may be a separate entry point and Self-Sort may follow Quiz. Deducting for the missing Cover and Self-Sort in what's shown.
Fix
Confirm Cover exists as the card entry with term name, one-line summary, and #65bf9e background. Confirm Self-Sort buttons follow the Quiz.
Citation
design guide §2 Required flow: Cover → Concept → Example → Visual/Graph → In Ultrasound → Quiz → Self-Sort.
Rationale
The Concept tab introduces the big idea ("sound wave creates two alternating zones") and then presents the two terms side by side. This is a concept, not a dictionary dump. The two terms are components of that concept, presented together because they only make sense as a pair. Well handled.
Fix
None needed.
Citation
acoustic-waves general "Sound exists as waves. That's a concept. These waves have properties; that's breaking apart the concept into components."
Rationale
The slinky interactive is functional and the right analogy. But the visual is code-drawn vertical lines on a pink rectangle. This is exactly the kind of programmer art Jenny has flagged three separate times. The slinky does not look like a slinky. It looks like a barcode.
Fix
Replace the scene-setting visual with a real illustration of a slinky (SVG or PNG from an illustration library or custom asset). The interactive drag behavior can remain code-driven, but the visual representation of the slinky itself needs to look like an actual coiled spring, not parallel vertical lines.
Citation
design guide §6b "A programmatic trapezoid with a rectangle is not a coffee cup. A circle on a plank is not a seesaw." compression-rarefaction feedback Jenny specifically requested "a slower example showing in red for compression a slinky being pushed together... and then in blue below... a blue slinky being pulled apart."
Rationale
Two text boxes, no interactive, no manipulation, no visual. "Sound Waves in Tissue" and "Why This Matters" are pure exposition. Even collapsed into dropdowns, this is just paragraphs. There is no bridge to ultrasound practice that a student can interact with. Jenny flagged this exact tab on this exact card.
Fix
Add a hands-on element: a draggable transducer that shows compression/rarefaction pulses entering tissue when the student "presses" it against a body surface. Collapse the current text into a single short dropdown. The primary experience on this tab should be interactive, not textual.
Citation
compression-rarefaction feedback "Make these two text boxes, Sound Waves in Tissue and Why This Matters, drop downs; over-explanatory text-heavy tab." design guide §6 "Prefer manipulation over observation. Graphs are acceptable as supplementary visuals but should not be the primary interactive in Ultrasound sections."
Rationale
Compression = red, Rarefaction = blue. Used consistently on the concept tab boxes, the slinky label, the particle visualization explanation text ("red zones" / "blue zones"), and the summary text below the example. Good consistency within this card. Deducting because I cannot verify these colors match the master list or carry across other cards.
Fix
Confirm these hex values are registered in the master term color list and applied identically on every card where compression or rarefaction appears.
Citation
design guide §3 "Every key term gets a dedicated color assigned once and used everywhere that term appears across all cards. Colors must be tracked in a master list."
Rationale
The concept tab shows term names (colored, bold) with properties listed below (squeezed together, high pressure, high density). But these are not formatted as Term → Definition (one sentence) → Example (one sentence, visually separated). They are property lists without a definition sentence or an example sentence. The format exists but does not follow the required structure.
Fix
Reformat each term box to: Compression (red, bold) / Definition: Particles are squeezed together, creating high pressure and high density. / Example: Like everyone crowding into one end of an elevator. Keep definition and example visually separated.
Citation
design guide §5 "All term definitions follow this format: Term Name (colored, bolded), Definition: One sentence. Anchor words bolded. Example: One sentence connecting to something familiar. Definition and Example are visually separated."
Rationale
"Squeezed together" and "stretched apart" are bolded. These are good anchor words for this concept. They are the phrases students need to recall. However, without the proper definition format (C2), the anchoring effect is weakened because they sit in a property list rather than in a definition sentence where context reinforces recall.
Fix
Keep these anchor words. Move them into proper definition sentences per the C2 fix. Verify with Jenny that these are the testable phrasings for compression/rarefaction.
Citation
inverse-related feedback "For Frequency I would BOLD the word(s) HOW MANY and for Period I would BOLD the word(s) HOW LONG and ONE CYCLE. This way it really reinforces what is the most important thing to remember."
Rationale
Cannot evaluate animation from static screenshots. The core takeaway phrases ("squeezed together" / "stretched apart") should bounce or shake on first view.
Fix
Verify in the live card. If not animated, add subtle bounce on first render.
Citation
design guide §4 "Core takeaway phrase... should be colored and animated with a subtle bounce or shake on first view. Not optional; Jenny requested this three times across separate cards."
Rationale
Red for compression (high pressure, density, closeness). Blue for rarefaction (low pressure, spreading). Applied consistently across every tab. The particle visualization uses red dots for dense zones and blue dots for sparse zones. The summary text uses matching colored bold terms. This is exactly right.
Fix
None needed.
Citation
design guide §4 "Warm color (red) for up/increase, cool color (blue) for down/decrease."
Rationale
Bold is used sparingly and intentionally. "Squeezed together" and "stretched apart" are bolded as anchor words. Title text is bold. No decorative bolding. No unnecessary emphasis on filler words. This card avoids the over-bolding problem flagged on inverse-related.
Fix
None needed.
Citation
inverse-related highlight "Only the word up is bolded. Probably not necessary to bold any items here."
Rationale
No emdashes visible in any tab.
Fix
None needed.
Citation
design guide §3 "No emdashes anywhere."
Rationale
The slinky is draggable ("Grab the left handle and push or pull"). That is direct manipulation, which is good. But the particle visualization on the Visual tab is observation-only with a speed slider. The student watches dots move; they do not control the wave. Two interactive moments on the card, one manipulation and one observation. The In Ultrasound tab has zero interactivity.
Fix
Make the particle visualization manipulable: let the student tap or click to create a compression pulse and watch it propagate, rather than watching a looping animation. Or let them drag a "source" on the left edge to push particles. Add an interactive to the In Ultrasound tab (see B4).
Citation
design guide §6 "Prefer manipulation over observation. Students should drag, turn, push, pull. Not just watch a dot on a graph."
Rationale
The particle visualization uses a slider bar for speed control. Slider bars are explicitly the least preferred control type in Jenny's hierarchy. The slinky uses direct drag, which is correct. But the slider on the Visual tab directly violates the stated preference.
Fix
Replace the speed slider with a more tactile control. Options: a draggable "pulse strength" that the student pushes into the particle field; a play/pause toggle with discrete speed buttons (slow / medium / fast) instead of a continuous slider; or remove the slider entirely and let the student create pulses manually.
Citation
design guide §6 "Seesaw/knob/draggable model > slider bar > static graph. Slider bars are the least preferred interactive." inverse-related feedback "I do not like having to drag the bar across the screen."
Rationale
No sound, no haptic-style feedback visible. Compression and rarefaction are literally about pressure waves that produce sound. This is the single most natural card for audio feedback and it has none.
Fix
When the student compresses the slinky, play a low tone or thud. When they stretch it, play a lighter/higher tone. On the particle visualization, let the speed or density change produce a pitch shift. This concept is about sound; let the student hear it.
Citation
design guide §6 "Sound and sensory feedback where possible: turning a knob louder/quieter, hearing pitch change with frequency. Makes abstract concepts tangible." direct-related feedback Jenny requested "a sound get louder and quieter depending on which way they turn the knob."
Rationale
The slinky interactive directly teaches compression vs. rarefaction through physical manipulation. That is well justified. The particle visualization adds a second representation (many particles in a medium) which builds understanding. Both earn their place conceptually. Deducting because the particle viz is more observation than participation, which weakens its justification.
Fix
Make the particle interactive participatory (see E1) and the justification becomes airtight.
Citation
rubric v2 §E4 "Interactive clearly improves understanding of the concept. If it adds complexity without clarity, simplify or remove."
Rationale
The slinky is drawn as parallel vertical lines. This is exactly the kind of "canvas programmer art" the design guide prohibits. It does not look like a slinky. It looks like a fence or barcode. There is no real illustration anywhere on the card. The concept tab has a dashed placeholder (correct protocol for missing assets), but the example tab presents code art as if it were the finished visual.
Fix
Replace the vertical-line slinky with a real illustrated coiled spring asset (SVG). The drag interaction layer stays as code; the visual representation of the object becomes a real image. Source from illustration libraries or commission a custom SVG matching the brand palette.
Citation
design guide §6b "Example scenario imagery must be real illustrations or photos, not canvas-drawn shapes." design guide §6b "Use <img> tags loading real SVG/PNG illustrations for scenario visuals. Use canvas/JS only for the interactive behavior layer."
Rationale
Placeholder for "Ultrasound transducer image" on concept tab. That is correct placeholder protocol. But the In Ultrasound tab has zero medical imagery. No transducer, no tissue representation, no scan. For a card about how ultrasound works at the physical level, the ultrasound tab should be the most visually grounded in clinical reality.
Fix
Add an illustrated transducer with compression/rarefaction pulses shown entering tissue. Even a placeholder frame with "Illustration: transducer sending compression pulses into tissue, showing dense and sparse zones" would be better than pure text boxes.
Citation
rubric v2 §F2 "Ultrasound-related visuals should resemble real practice (transducers, tissue, blood flow), not abstract representations. Placeholder must indicate planned real scan integration."
Rationale
The concept tab has a properly marked dashed placeholder frame with "Ultrasound transducer image" description. This is exactly the right protocol.
Fix
None needed. Apply the same protocol to the In Ultrasound tab where medical visuals are also missing.
Citation
design guide §6b "When an illustration is not yet available, use a clearly marked dashed placeholder frame with a description of what goes there."
Rationale
The slinky (slow, manual, user-controlled) appears in Example before the particle animation (fast, automated) in Visual. That sequencing is correct. The particle visualization also has its speed slider set to the low end by default. Good. But Jenny still complained that the particles "move too fast," which means the slow default may not be slow enough, or the slider range doesn't go low enough.
Fix
Lower the minimum speed on the particle visualization. The slowest setting should show individual particles visibly shifting position, not a rapid wave. Consider starting the visualization paused, with a "Start" button, so the student chooses when to begin.
Citation
compression-rarefaction feedback "Slow down particles, they move too fast." compression-rarefaction feedback "It is hard to wrap my head around just being shown the fast version first."
Rationale
The particle visualization is a dense, continuously looping animation of dozens of dots. Even at low speed, this is visually busy. Jenny said "it's hard on the eyes to continually see this as fast as it is." A speed slider exists but the default experience is still a wall of moving dots. The animation does not feel restrained.
Fix
Start paused. Show a static snapshot of one compression and one rarefaction zone labeled clearly. Let the student press play to see it in motion. Add a pause button. Reduce the number of particle rows (currently 8+) to 3-4 so the visual is less overwhelming.
Citation
compression-rarefaction feedback "This is great but would there be a way the user can slow this down and speed it up... its hard on the eyes to continually see this as fast as it is." design guide §7 "Students should be able to interact at their own pace before seeing the full-speed version."
Rationale
The In Ultrasound tab is the problem. Screenshot 3 shows both "Sound Waves in Tissue" and "Why This Matters" expanded simultaneously, each with 3-sentence paragraphs. That is 6+ sentences of dense exposition on one screen. Jenny explicitly flagged this tab as "over-explanatory text-heavy." Screenshots 4 and 5 show dropdown states, which is progress, but the default view still appears to show at least one expanded.
Fix
Default both to collapsed. Better yet, replace the text-heavy approach entirely with a visual + short caption (see B4). If the text must stay, limit to one visible sentence per dropdown with the rest behind "Read more."
Citation
compression-rarefaction feedback "Make these two text boxes... drop downs; over-explanatory text-heavy tab." design guide §8 "Collapse secondary explanations into dropdowns. If a section has more than 3-4 sentences visible at once, it is too text-heavy."
Rationale
The In Ultrasound tab is entirely tell, zero show. The concept and example tabs do better (visual boxes, interactive slinky, particle viz). But the ultrasound application, which is the most clinically important section, relies on paragraphs to do work that a simple animation of a transducer sending pulses into tissue would do instantly.
Fix
Replace the In Ultrasound text walls with a visual. Even a static illustrated diagram of a transducer + tissue with labeled compression/rarefaction zones would be better than three sentences explaining what happens.
Citation
design guide §8 "Placeholders for images/visuals are better than paragraphs of explanation. Show, do not tell."
Rationale
The slinky interactive (screenshots 7-8) has massive empty space above and below the coil element. The pink box is mostly air. The slinky sits in the middle third of a tall container with nothing above or below it. The concept tab is better but the placeholder image box adds dead space. In Ultrasound tab with both dropdowns collapsed (screenshot 5) is half empty.
Fix
Shrink the slinky container to fit the content. The interactive area should hug the coils, not give them a penthouse. Remove or reduce padding above/below the slinky element. Tighten the In Ultrasound section so collapsed dropdowns don't leave a mostly-empty card body.
Citation
inverse-related feedback "Too much whitespace above seesaw, doesn't need to be perfectly square." design guide §9 "Tighten whitespace. Illustrations do not need to be square or have large padding."
Rationale
The tab structure creates clear progression. Within each tab, the flow (title → text → interactive → summary → bridge button) is consistent and logical. The concept tab's two-box layout creates an immediate visual comparison. Clean and professional. Deducting because the In Ultrasound tab breaks the hierarchy by being entirely text with no visual anchor point.
Fix
Maintain the same hierarchy pattern on the In Ultrasound tab: lead with a visual, follow with brief text, offer interaction.
Citation
design guide §9 "Clear visual hierarchy: concept > explanation > example > interactive."
Rationale
The title "Compression and Rarefaction" appears to use a brush-style font consistent with Tomarik Brush. Tab labels appear to be in a clean sans serif, possibly uppercase Tomarik Poster or a substitute. Body text appears to be DM Sans or similar. However, the "Sound Waves in Tissue" and "Why This Matters" headings inside dropdowns appear to use the title brush font, which should be reserved for card titles, not sub-section headers. Sub-section headers should use the subtitle font (Tomarik Poster, all caps).
Fix
Audit font usage: Tomarik Brush for card title only. Tomarik Poster (all caps) for sub-section headers like "Sound Waves in Tissue." DM Sans for body.
Citation
design guide §11 "Titles: Tomarik Brush. Subtitles: Tomarik Poster (all caps). Body: DM Sans (placeholder)."