- Originality. I took the first author of something which
looked new. Later copies of the same object would be discarded. I'm aware that
the original might so have become renamed. But I have no way to find out, who
got inspired by intuition and who got inspired by somebody else.
- Implementability. Since I had to retype thousands of Mathematica
lines by hand (OCR takes much longer), a submission of an individual student
had to be short enough. Some nice but long graphics descriptions had to be
dismissed because of that.
- Potential. Some graphics had the potential to look good,
when animated. I'm sure that I missed some nice graphics contributions
but I had to choose, during the a few dozen hours, I could spend on
regenerating and enhancing the graphics.
- Presentation. The way, the notebook was submitted also played
a role. Of course, color could help to make a graphics stand out.
I would also look more carefully at submissions, where the author had
taken care to present it nicely.
- Luck I worked during many days on this gallery. Sometimes for several hours
in a row. At the end of a day, I would probably be less inclined to include
something, then after a fresh start. But since the decision whether a graphics
would be included in this gallery or not has no influence on the grades, this
can be accepted.
- Surprise. Some contributions were very simple, but had an element
of surprise to me. If somebody can produce with a handful of graphics objects
something meaningful or pretty, I would be tempted too to include it.