OT? Criteria for LENGTHY presentations

On 5/13/2015 6:11 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
> Documentaries come to mind.  They're not usually boring, because that
> would be devestating to their purpose.  Why aren't they?  (Well, in the
> eye of the beholder, I'm sure...)
> - Structure: lay out your plan in the beginning, follow it through

I think all of these (art) videos can make some claim to doing that.
They "start at the beginning" and "work towards the end".  I'm not
sure how much of the anecdotal commentary is planned ahead of time
vs. just "stuff that pops into their heads while working".

> - Break it down into segments of alternating purpose and pace
> - A problem-and-solution can often be phrased as a mystery, so you lead
> into it; the tension keeps the starting point in mind.  Usually a pretty
> trite thing (seems to me, grade school textbooks do that), but it's
> something.  A mystery is typically considered the easiest kind of story to
> write.

Where's the mystery in "Beacon Street on an Autumn Evening"?  I.e.,
you typically *see* what the artist is TRYING to paint -- though
how he gets to that point is up for grabs (and, whether it will
be realistic, abstract, etc.)

> - Typically they'll go from narrative sections to interview sections.
> Something similar might still be useful even if it's all the same person
> doing the presentation.
> - VISUALS all the time!

Well, the whole thing *is* visual, by definition.  There's no "read along
study text" involved.  But, it's always the same medium, same artist, etc.
(There's no point in showing you how *oils* would look if you're a
watercolor artist)

> And if it's truly just too boring to watch, consider rephrasing it as an
> academic paper instead.  Those things can drone on for days.  But you can
> always skim and look at figures and jump around sections, and always come
> back to things you might've missed.  Some things are very hard to describe
> or convey in written versus visual technique, but on occasion, those can
> be compressed to their very essence as short clips, and the description
> left in the text.  (Electronic articles have hyperlinks, it's the most
> amazing invention! ;) )

I don't think it would add anything to an artist's presentation.
What?  Being able to hyperlink to before and after shots?  :<

> Another reference comes to mind, Bob Ross -- a visual and narrative
> experience, always interesting and changing, until the painting is
> complete.  Rich with technique and conversation, it holds your attention
> in a casual way.

Ross is (was) lucky to have a great speaking voice -- low key, mellow,
etc.  But, much of what he did was gimmicky -- "use this brush, held
in this way to get this effect".  (He was also using oils/acrylics?
which tend to be far more forgiving -- he didn't have to explain *why*
he was working on one part of the composition and ignoring another)
If you watch many of his videos, you'll soon realize that they are
essentially "Watch me paint this while talking to you..."  Great,
if you want to paint the same thing!  :(

What I've found difficult is trying to relate to the "artistic process".
It's far less constrained than technological processes.  E.g., you
can't stuff the board until you've got blanks in front of you; you
can't get the blanks until you've finished the layout; you can't finish
the layout until you've got a schematic; etc.

By contrast, a painting can begin *anywhere*.  An artist may elect to
lay down all of this particular RED; then move on to this particular
BLUE; etc.  It is unnerving to see little disjoint splotches of
color being applied to a canvas -- even if you KNOW what it actually
WILL look like when finished (e.g., the artist may show you the finished
painting BEFORE the video begins -- the wonders of post!  :> )
Even more disturbing when the artist doesn't first *draw* (pencil)
the scene he is trying to paint:  "How the hell does he know that's
the right place for that blob of red paint???"

On 5/13/2015 2:55 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2015 12:51:12 -0700, Don Y wrote:

>> An artist friend approached me to produce a video (DVD).
>> I declined (not what I'm interested in doing) but offered to prepare a
>> list of issues that should be considered when doing same.  (mic'ing,
>> background noise, camera angles, etc.).

>> So, what keeps *your* interest in a lengthy (non-interactive!)
>> presentation?
>
> I used to go to the Embedded Systems Conference quite a lot, where the
> sessions were 90 minutes long.  I both presented and watched.
>
> 1: Keep the material clear.

Have you ever talked to an "artist"?  Esp one acknowledged as being
"successful", "good", etc.?  They have their own language.  And,
it isn't even shared among *other* (equally successful) artists!

The only thing that is truly "clear" is the finished work (often
shown at the start and end of the "lesson").

Imagine talking to a sculptor about how he extracts the "figure
hidden within" from the block of marble (I really mean that!
Try to imagine the conversation.  It's nowhere near as "obvious"
as describing how to deploy a control algorithm, etc.)

> 2: Power point slides are visual aids, not text to read from.

I understand your point -- but it doesn't apply, here.  I've not
seen a video where the presenter had any "prepared" text slides.
OTOH, I *have* seen videos where they had prepared "studies",
"color wheels", etc. to illustrate the points they would be making
(why watch him paint a colorwheel?  There's no information
to be gained from the *application* of the colors -- rather, the
*choice* of colors and their relationships to each other)

> 3: Move around.  I jump around like a demented flea when I present

I;m not sure how well that would work, either.  Who wants to see
the presenter standing somewhere *other* than with his "work"
and tools?  He'll be spending most of his time showing you things
*with* those, not talking in generalities/specifics.

> 4: Make jokes.  Don't TELL jokes, MAKE jokes.  Generally I try
>     for asides that are apropos to the material, or stupid puns.

I saw a (live, art) demo in which the presenter illustrated some
of the things he was advising against:  "Don't do this -- because
it makes a horrid mess, as you can see! (and then does exactly
what he's told you not to do and *makes* that mess)".  But, the
difference, there, is demos are just that -- demonstrations.
They are usually much shorter (30min) and not concerned with
making a real piece of art.  Instead, they are demonstrating
a *technique*.  The equivalent of the "video" would be the 4 day
class that (usually) begins the next day (i.e., the demo gives
everyone a taste of what he'll be teaching; only the folks who've
paid for the class will get the rest of the instruction)

The videos seem to follow the line of producing a finished work.
So, there are no unfortunate or deliberate "mistakes" thrown
in for entertainment.  Unless something unfortunate happens
("by chance"), everything looks like it was *designed* to happen
the way it did.

> 5: Vary the rhythm of the presentation -- break up the technical
>     stuff with illustrative anecdotes (since I teach stuff on
>     motion control, these will often involve smoke, loud noises,
>     and/or coworkers exiting the room at speed).

Some artists will recount anecdotes of their travels or how they
learned a particular technique, etc. to fill the dead air while
they finish laying in a background wash (nothing to describe, there...
just takes some time to actually *do* it).

But, for the most part, they're just trying to "get it done" and
not make any embarassing mistakes (imagine if someone watched
*your* creative process and blemishes along the way)

> 6: Respond to questions.

This is a double edged sword.  First, it assumes the folks asking questions
ask *good* questions -- questions comparable to those that the viewer
might want answered.  Second, it assumes that those watching don't
disturb the presentation -- injecting background noise or causing the
presenter to spend so much time focusing on *them* that the video
viewer feels left out of the presentation.

I watched a series of "lectures" from a remarkable illustrator.  He
was excellent at explaining why you drew particular things in particular
ways (e.g., the underlying anatomy in living things; relationships
of light and shadow; etc.).  But, the videos were poorly produced.
As if someone had set up a microphone in the room and pointed a camera
(or two) at the presenter and his easel (which is where he spent 99.93%
of his time).

So, you'd hear people coughing, crickets chirping, chairs scraping as
they were slid in/out, etc.  And, all the while, you felt like you
were an outside observer watching one of his classes -- not an
active viewer.

> Some of these are, obviously, hard to do in a video.  For point 6, having
> someone off-camera to ask questions for the viewing audience might help,
> however.  For point 3, having a presenter who's moving around would
> require a better class of cameraman than just a fixed camera, but might
> help.
>
> The rest of the points could be done as easily in a video as in a real
> presentation.
>
> Having said all of that, passively watching video is different from being
> in the room with a real-live person who can see your face (or the top of
> your head, if he's got the misfortune of having the 1:30-3:00 time slot).
> So having the presenter announce significant breaks in the flow somehow
> (or even "we're going to take a break, why don't you pause the video for a
> few minutes) may cue the audience to go rest up.

I think you have to forcefully inject that into a prerecorded video.
I.e., there is no one in the room with the viewer to *suggest* they
get up and take a break.  Hence my  idea of artificially splitting the
presentation over two 45 minute "sessions" -- requiring an unnecessary
media change between them.  To act as a sort of "strong hint" that
you should take a break -- and, possibly, come back at some other time.

[The series I am preparing to watch, now, is about 10 hours on 6 DVDs.
*I* will be overly aggressive of my use of the "pause" feature -- even
letting the DVD player spin in place overnight!  But, that's because
10 or 15 minutes is about all I can *force* myself to watch (imagine
watching a foreign film without subtitles... that's about how engaging
this sort of thing is, for me).  OTOH, I *will* actually *SEE* all of
it!  Others watching a DVD at a time will probably sleep through a
significant portion.  :< ]

Don Y wrote:
> Hi,
>
> An artist friend approached me to produce a video (DVD).
> I declined (not what I'm interested in doing) but offered
> to prepare a list of issues that should be considered
> when doing same. (mic'ing, background noise, camera angles,
> etc.).
>
> I was given a bunch of "professional" (e.g., $100/ea) videos
> of similar content to review. The comments that accompanied
> them (from my friend and other "artists") were invariably:
> "Oh, there's lots of great information in (most of) these!
> But, THEY PUT YOU TO SLEEP!" (literally).
>
> OK, so I watched a couple. Boring but probably because I am
> not interested in the material and can't really "relate" to
> it or how I could benefit from it.
>
> They are typically 90 minutes, or so. Sometimes broken into
> shorter segments. But, I see nothing that *suggests* you
> "walk away and take a break, here". So, it's like watching
> someone talk for 90 minutes about *his/her* work while you
> "watch from a distance".
>
> I suspect the length is one big issue. I can't remember having
> to sit through a 90 minute "lecture" in my professional career.
> Staff meeting, etc.
>
> And, the fact that it is *one* voice/presenter (note the evening
> news tends to ping-pong between *two* presenters -- so there is
> some variation in the speech characteristics, etc.) probably
> contributes.
>
> There are usually just one or two FIXED camera angles -- you're
> always looking at the same backdrop, no real eye candy to revive
> your interest, etc.
>
> Given that much of the material probably *needs* the lengthy
> presentation (you can't really do the Professor trick of
> hand-waving and pulling the finished result out of a secret
> compartment -- "The details are left as an exercise for the
> student"), it seems like something else has to be tweaked to
> make it more "engaging" or "riveting".
>
> [I suspect folks would also balk at $100 for a *30* minute video!
> So, there is some value to length]
>
> I'm thinking back on the presentations that I enjoyed most and
> note that humor played a role in many -- some "joke" injected
> at a particular point (Not "A priest, a rabbi and a minister..."
> but, rather, a slide inserted upside down, or a slide of the
> presenter's kids at a birthday party mixed in with the lot, etc.)
>
> But, that would get old, too, if it was mechanically applied to
> all of these.
>
> So, what keeps *your* interest in a lengthy (non-interactive!)
> presentation?
   One thing that might help:
   Break up into modules, none of them any longer than 2 minutes (ie 
before listener goes to sleep mentally).
   Each module PSR:
* Presentation of problem = Summarizes the background, challenge, or 
problem, for example: "within tight time frames," "during a departmental 
move," "while department staffing level was at 50%," "took on additional 
responsibilities while maintaining current workload."
* Statement (i think that was the term, been over 30 years) = Tells what 
you did, and the personal strengths that enabled you to take action. The 
key here is to be specific and use strong action verbs.
* Resolution = include key deliverables, “measurables" and contributions.
   Even if you were the janitor,take credit for increase of workplace 
efficiency over a goodly period of time ("as a result of the clean 
environment, profitability was increased by $2million over a 5 year 
period").

   That is to say,each module is a complete story.

On Wed, 13 May 2015 12:51:12 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>
> I suspect the length is one big issue.  I can't remember having
> to sit through a 90 minute "lecture" in my professional career.
> Staff meeting, etc.
>

Not length, not one speaker only.

I sat with a group of students and listened to Buckminster Fuller for 3  
straight hours, no break, no boredom, and when he stopped, people still  
gathered up around him to glean more.

I rmember MOST:
1. content, what I learned, what I carried away.
2. Satire, humour, a 'rhythm' if you will.
3. Lots of sensory stimulation: audio, visual, supporting demos, etc; also  
a 'rhtyhm' pattern how hey were spaced.
4. And his ability to ANSWER a question, just as you thought of it.  
Sequencing was incredible. One thought leading to another.

On 14/05/15 02:01, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2015 19:04:25 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> John Larkin wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I want to do a series of vids, to unload all the weird stuff that I
>>> know. Gotta find someone to help, and keep me from being
>>> fatheaded/annoying.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do it to audio-only first ( dictation, basically ) and
>> by the time you finish that, you'll know how to outline what
>> you're doing and it'll be a snap.
>
> I need a whiteboard! And I wouldn't really rehearse.
>

That's how I like to do presentations.  It also works well with feedback 
from the audience - you can change pace or level of detail as you go 
along.  (Of course, that won't work for a DVD or for a big audience!)

On 13/05/15 21:51, Don Y wrote:
> So, what keeps *your* interest in a lengthy (non-interactive!)
> presentation?


One good idea is to drop PowerPoint.  A few slides can be useful - some 
things are better said in pictures.  But most slides distract attention, 
and fail to add anything to the content of the presentation.  The worst 
is when people read what is on the slides - studies have shown that 
audiences remember less in this case than when they get just the slides, 
or just the talk.

<https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/the-powerpoint-plague/>

On 5/14/2015 2:21 AM, RobertMacy wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2015 12:51:12 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I suspect the length is one big issue.  I can't remember having
>> to sit through a 90 minute "lecture" in my professional career.
>> Staff meeting, etc.
>>
>
> Not length, not one speaker only.
>
> I sat with a group of students and listened to Buckminster Fuller for 3
> straight hours, no break, no boredom, and when he stopped, people still
> gathered up around him to glean more.

I suspect the material wasn't very "dry"  :>  I can probably keep people
interested watching me make "balloon animals" for the better part of
an hour.  But, they'd quickly tire of me drawing stick figures of
comparable complexity!

Imagine, for example, producing a DVD that teaches folks how to
"draw good schematics" (!!)

Chances are, much of the time, the screen will be showing a schematic
in some level of detail/zoom.  You won't be prancing around the room,
gesticulating wildly, etc. -- because the schematic is where the focus
will want to remain.

You've got to describe:
- choosing a sheet size
- orientation
- grid system
- title block
- revision block
- overall structure of the document
- signal flow
- some basic set of symbols and their orientations
- other "conventions" to increase comprehension
- off-page connections
- busses
- power/ground
- adding manufacturing details
- addressing revisions
- breaking the circuit down into "logical pages"
etc.

After an hour, I suspect most folks will be tired of hearing you
drone on and on about these details.  There aren't many *natural*
opportunities to inject humor, diversions, distractions, etc.

Think about it.  How *would* you prepare a non-interactive
video for something as "trivial" as schematic preparation?

Once you've addressed that, imagine making the sequel:  "All
About (PCB) Layout"

And, don't forget "Board Stuffing for Dummies"

Etc.

I am actually serious -- each of these can be chock full of good,
detailed information... yet boring as watching grass grow!  Think
about how you would set up the camera angles, where you would stand,
what you would say, how *you* wouldn;t get sucked into the monotony,
etc.

Would you break the Schematic video into 10 different 10-minute "lessons"
just so you could artificially shorten the duration of each "episode"?
When would you expect the viewer to set the video aside to finish on
another day?

> I rmember MOST:
> 1. content, what I learned, what I carried away.
> 2. Satire, humour, a 'rhythm' if you will.
> 3. Lots of sensory stimulation: audio, visual, supporting demos, etc; also a
> 'rhtyhm' pattern how hey were spaced.
> 4. And his ability to ANSWER a question, just as you thought of it. Sequencing
> was incredible. One thought leading to another.

> Imagine, for example, producing a DVD that teaches folks how to
> "draw good schematics" (!!)
>
> After an hour, I suspect most folks will be tired of hearing you
> drone on and on about these details.  There aren't many *natural*
> opportunities to inject humor

https://xkcd.com/730/

Don't underestimate XKCD! It is the first site I go to when I need some 
humour in my presentations (or rather, I have broswed it all and 
gathered the candidates.)

Wouter van Ooijen

On 5/14/2015 8:00 AM, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> Imagine, for example, producing a DVD that teaches folks how to
>> "draw good schematics" (!!)
>>
>> After an hour, I suspect most folks will be tired of hearing you
>> drone on and on about these details.  There aren't many *natural*
>> opportunities to inject humor
>
> https://xkcd.com/730/
>
> Don't underestimate XKCD! It is the first site I go to when I need some humour
> in my presentations (or rather, I have broswed it all and gathered the
> candidates.)

Yes, but when you do it again, later in that 90 minute
presentation (and, again in the *second* video -- "Layout"),
it becomes cliche:  "OK, we've had our laugh, now he'll be
back to the boring stuff..."

I had to make some reprints of SWMBO's original art.  I
thought it would be amusing to insert (Photoshop) a little,
yellow rubber duck in one of them (just a "gag" copy).
It wasn't regarded as humorous.  :<

On Thu, 14 May 2015 04:23:04 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

  [..]

> Imagine, for example, producing a DVD that teaches folks how to
> "draw good schematics" (!!)
>
> Chances are, much of the time, the screen will be showing a schematic
> in some level of detail/zoom.  You won't be prancing around the room,
> gesticulating wildly, etc. -- because the schematic is where the focus
> will want to remain.
>
> You've got to describe:
> - choosing a sheet size
> - orientation
> - grid system
> - title block
> - revision block
> - overall structure of the document
> - signal flow
> - some basic set of symbols and their orientations
> - other "conventions" to increase comprehension
> - off-page connections
> - busses
> - power/ground
> - adding manufacturing details
> - addressing revisions
> - breaking the circuit down into "logical pages"
> etc.
>
> After an hour, I suspect most folks will be tired of hearing you
> drone on and on about these details.  There aren't many *natural*
> opportunities to inject humor, diversions, distractions, etc.

Zzzzz... Wha'? Oh, sorry Don. Were you saying something? <grin>

> Think about it.  How *would* you prepare a non-interactive
> video for something as "trivial" as schematic preparation?

Please, _not_ like that.  I've had to sit through lectures, I've seen
software "tutorials", and I've watched videos all of which used this
"Follow the book.  Step.  By.  Step." approach, and I'd really, _really_
like to see it exterminated.

This seems like a good time to put in a few plugs:

  Tufte, "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information"
  William Zinsser, "On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing
                    Nonfiction"

  Being Scheherazade: The Importance Of Storytelling In Academic Writing
  http://aom.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/AMJ/FTE%20June%202013.pdf

Book, paper, lecture, or video, the heart of the matter is that "your"
intent is to convey knowledge or experience to some individual or group.
Ideally, you'd begin by defining to yourself (and probably somewhat
loosely) exactly who your intended audince was, and what it was that you
wished to convey; a presentation on "How to use Eagle CAD" to senior
Intel designers would be at least slightly different from "Introductory
Schematics" for high school Juniors.  Are you explaing "How to draw
something someone else can read on the Internet"? Or is it "How to draw
schematics to HP factory specifications"?

Assumed background, and vocabulary in particular, is critical.  When you
show a schematic and mention "2N3904", "MOSFET", or "16-bit data bus",
are you telling your audience something they already know? Or will they
assume that this is something you'll cover later? If you can find some
way to state simply and clearly up front what your intended goal for the
video is, you give your audience a chance to decide whether the material
is what they are looking for.

Redundancy is not a sin (though repetition often is).  The first time I
recall trying to read a schematic I think was learning how to make a
"nail and magnet wire" electromagnet, and the first thing I had to learn
was how to make the link between "a spool of wire and a #6 dry cell" on
the one hand and those "funny blobs and squiggles" on the other.  Having
drawings of each, showing how the "real things" corresponded to the
"circuit things" in a complete real-world example -- was extremely
helpful to me. ( Of course, I still had to learn what things a schematic
_doesn't_ say -- the difference between a #6 dry cell and an AA cell, for
example. )

In your hypothetical example video, you could show a simple schematic,
then show a populated PCB made from it.  And perhaps then show a
different board made from the same schematic, demonstrating how the same
"funny lines" _can_ be interpreted differently by reasonable people.
Knowing the "areas of ambiguity" is important to the grasp of any
material.

One way (among many) of avoiding the tedium of the "Table of Contents"
approach is to explain why what you're talking about is important.  And
why it is important to your audience. ( Is it? Did you tell them why? )

Your stated goal (for this discussion) is to pass on "good" schematic
design.  Concepts can be defined positively ("139 Principles of a Good
Schematic"), but they can also be defined negatively, and sometimes it's
easier to define the often nebulous boundary between "good" and "bad" by
working first from the outside in, and then from the inside out.  And it
can be done by example, since humans are remarkably good
pattern-detectors:

  "This is a truly awful schematic"   (why?)
  "This one is even worse!"           (why?)
  "And this one is horrendous!!!"     (why?)

What are the _effects_ of "good" vs. "bad" schematics? If you're talking
to a group of HP engineers, what are some of the short-term and long-term
consequences to those _using_ someone else's "bad" schematic? What is the
effect on the company? The customers? ( I'm not talking about a fifteen
minute digression, but a few short, real-life experiences -- especially
ones with horrible consequences -- would add "color" to what you're
saying, and that will help your audience retain it as part of their
"why".  Even serious mistakes, if clearly described, can be part of an
educational curriculum -- ask me some day about Dr.  Bergren's "95 Theses
on Education" from my first year at New College. <grin!> )

After you've explained how to recognize "bad" schematics -- they tend to
let the MagicSmoke(tm) escape -- you can segue into "How to avoid these
problems":

  - "Bad Idea #1" example. How to avoid.
  - "Bad Idea #2" example. How to avoid.
  etc. ( but _not_ ad infinitum. <grin> )

Finally, a list of things your audience can use to help themselves after
you're "gone":

  - Run an auto-router on your schematic and see if it spews out pages of
    problems.
  - Ask a co-worker to review your work.
  - Good books to read.
  - Online references.
  etc.

> Once you've addressed that, imagine making the sequel:  "All
> About (PCB) Layout"

Um... "This is a bad layout.  The idiot did this: ..." "This is a worse
one. ..."

> And, don't forget "Board Stuffing for Dummies"

First Rule: Never, never, never, never, never, never sneeze. <grin!>

I think that those could be made just as interesting.  And informative.

( But then, I'm a "bleedin' optometrist" by nature. <grin> )

> Etc.
>
> I am actually serious -- each of these can be chock full of good,
> detailed information... yet boring as watching grass grow!  Think
> about how you would set up the camera angles, where you would stand,
> what you would say, how *you* wouldn;t get sucked into the monotony,
> etc.

Those come later.  If I were looking over your shoulder, what would you
be pointing to, and what would you be saying?

> Would you break the Schematic video into 10 different 10-minute "lessons"
> just so you could artificially shorten the duration of each "episode"?
> When would you expect the viewer to set the video aside to finish on
> another day?

If I'm looking over your shouldder, I just say "Wait a sec.!" and run to
the cuarto de bano while you're on [Pause]. <grin>

If you do make a long-ish video clip, think about how your viewer will
find his way back to the same spot in the clip tomorrow, or a week from
now.  Or how he can describe to a co-worker how to view your examples of
"truly horrible schematics".

Ah, well.  I've run out of steam.  I hope you can find something useful
in this rambling.


Frank McKenney
-- 
  Gallipoli illustrates a principle which began to be apparent in
  European wars as early as the Armada.  It is that distance lends
  enchantment to the most crackbrained strategic ideas.  Not that the
  high command or the home public is any less well informed about
  operations in distant theaters.  All the necessary facts may be at
  hand; they simply lack urgency; the imagination has freer play with
  them.     -- Charles Fair / From the Jaws of Victory
-- 
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney aatt mindspring ddoott com