OT? Criteria for LENGTHY presentations

On Wed, 13 May 2015 21:17:44 -0700, Don Y wrote:

> 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.)

Trust me, describing how to deploy a control algorithm to people who have 
no clue is nowhere near as "obvious" before you've seen it done than after.

I think that your artist friend should take this, and all of the other 
points, as challenges rather than as things to be excused away.  If he's 
got a different language than every other artist in the whole freaking 
world, then it is _his_ responsibility to make what he is saying 
accessible to his audience.  If he says something and a listener who is a 
competent practitioner can't make it out, then _he_ is a dumb-ass, not the 
listener.

Etc.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Hi Frank,

On 5/14/2015 1:23 PM, Frnak McKenney wrote:
> 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" (!!)

>> 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.

I chose the example because I think all of us (here) could relate to it.
Which steps would you "omit" on the ASSUMPTION that the viewer was
already conversant at that level?  How would you *tell* purchasers
of that video that "this isn't for you" (or, this *is* for you)?

In electronics, we have a fairly well-defined set of concepts, a
common terminology, etc.  So, you *can* say "The viewer is expected
to be familiar with ...." and folks would be able to self-assess
whether or not they met those criteria.

"Art" doesn't seem to be as cleanly defined (at least, from my
casual exposure to it "over other folks' shoulders" for the
past decade or so).  While most (non-novices) will understand
the difference between warm and cool colors, transparent and
opaque, etc. many of the more artistic (vs. scientific) concepts
are vague and hard to define.

What's "tension" in a painting?  How *specifically* (i.e., in
terms that could be encoded into an algorithm) do you keep
the viewer's eyes *in* the painting?  Entice them to move
from one area to another?  Why are shadows purple?  etc.

[I am also amused at how hard perspective is for artists to
comprehend.  And, how often they screw it up when producing
a painting!]

Ever look at the variety of paintbrushes that are offered?
Why all the different shapes?  (I assume "sizes" have
obvious merits)  Why so many different materials?  ("Gee,
no one told me that I have to keep them covered lest *moths*
feast on them!")

Why so many different types of "paper"?  Paint??
(And we'll ignore the artificial snobbery that treats
"mixed media" differently than "pure media")

> 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

I will chase these down, thanks.  Though I'm not sure how they will
help my artist friend -- or, *me* in providing guidance!

> 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"?

We've all met folks who were *geniuses* in their respective fields.
Yet, totally inept at transferring their knowledge to others.  (And,
that ignores those who are solely looking for a product/profit opportunity)

You might be "well intended" but simply not have the appropriate
skillset(s) for the task.

Most of the (art) videos that I've watched boil down to "watch me
paint".  Most artists don't really know what makes their work
"good" (or bad).  And, the only way they *know* it is good (or bad)
is based on the selling prices they command (which can be influenced
by all sorts of things unrelated to "quality"!) or the "awards"
they receive at juried shows.

"You're really good!  You should make a video!"  (Ummm.... )

> 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.

What's the goal of a video about a particular artist's style of
painting?  Folks buying it are probably trying to answer the
question:  "How can I make my paintings as good as his/hers?"
(Yet, they don't even know what *makes* the paintings "good").

I spent 15 minutes at one show "studying" a painting that I was *convinced*
was actually a *print*/photo with "overlaid texture" (i.e., a clear plastic
coating that gives the illusion of brush strokes).  I methodically
examined the canvas looking for "impossible" conditions:  brust strokes
(in the texture) that magically changed color "mid stream"; or, that
didn't "line up" with the colors shown beneath.

Obviously, I was wrong (the work would never have been allowed into
that "high end" of a show if it was a photo/reproduction).  So, here
is a technically *perfect* piece -- you would be hard pressed to
claim it *wasn't* a photograph!  Yet, it was a totally BORING
piece of art -- folks kept wondering why I was so fascinated with it
(because no one else gave it a second glance!)

Do I want to learn how to "paint like a photograph"?  Or, paint
something in which people will be interested??  Does the artist
making the video *know* his relative skills/shortcomings?
("Buy my video if you want to know how to make photorealistic,
but boring, paintings!")  Does the person buying it realize these
issues before sitting down to watch it?

> 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

So, a schematic video that skips over those fundamental details
("avoid four way streets -- this is why!") would have been of no
help to you.  It would have inundated you with information that you
couldn't process/make use of.

> 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? )

With art stuff, there never seems to be an absolute "right" and "wrong".
Why are you using *this* blue instead of *that* blue?  In theory, with
three (well chosen) colors, all others can be synthesized.  Some artists
put a gray on their pallette; others scoff at the idea claiming you should
always mix your own (as you rarely use a "pure" color so that canned gray
will eventually need to be tinted, etc.)

I think you can put chapter stops in to allow the "front matter" to
be easily skipped (the inevitable "I am great!  I won all these awards!
I like painting pictures of ducks!!").  And, *perhaps* the introduction
to the particular materials that will be used throughout the presentation:
the specific paint colors, vendor of choice, arrangement on the pallette,
*PALLETTE VENDOR* (yeah, folks even think the shape/size/composition of
the pallette may be significant or impact their painting proficiency!)

> 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?)

Yes.  As I said, in a "live demo" this is often the case -- "see what happens
when I try to mix Cobalt Blue in with this color?  You get *mud*!".
But, live demos tend to be disposable and short.  You're not trying to
"make a painting" but, rather, show some portion of your process to
entice folks to sign up for the course that you flew into town to teach!

Imagine building a circuit and intentionally putting 1/10W R's in
places where 1/2W were required -- *poof*!  But, you can have another
identical instance of that circuit in the desk drawer that you can
then pull out -- you're demonstration hasn't cost you anything
(besides a handful of components).

[Imagine da Vinci painting a second copy of La Gioconda of equal
quality -- but with a FROWN... just to illustrate the impact of the
"half smile" on the final painting!  Or, a second copy of the Statue
of Liberty but with the torch held in her LEFT hand...]

> 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> )

Again, illustrating these in an art video is problematic.  In order to not
consume lots of time, the presenter would have had to have created these
other variations -- at comparable quality/detail -- prior to the filming;
then, just drag them out as "I told you so's".

> 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?

When I build my (print) tutorials, I try to lead the reader along in
my thinking.  Show an initial concept, then its problems, then refine
it, etc.  So, the reader's comprehension *grows* with each passing
paragraph.  "This approach has these benefits/liabilities/costs"

Where practical, I use multimedia to clarify things that print
simply can't.  "What does this particular dipthong SOUND like?"
And, lately, even interactive "demos":  "How does location in the
mouth alter the character of a vowel?"  (Of course, all of these
hooks fall away when you render the tutorial onto dead trees!)

I don't think that sort of thing is possible with art "lessons".
Any sort of "interactive choice"  would prerequire the presenter to
have created all these different varieties (to choose from); it's
not like you could move a slider and change the tint of a particular
applied color (because usually many colors interact)

>> 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".

DVD's aren't particularly good at this.  You could add lots of chapter
stops.  But, many players don't export this information in a way that
users can readily understand (my DVD player displays what I *think*
are chapter numbers... but it seems to *reuse* them!)

An "online" presentation could possibly offer more flexibility in
that regard.  But, I don't think many people are keen on watching
90-120 minutes in front of their computer!

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

Thanks!  As I see it, the problem is the *material* and its unique
characteristics.  I think it is relatively easy to put together a
*technical* presentation -- subject layered upon those that preceded
them.  I'm not sure there is any such structure in an artistic
presentation...  (of course, the "Artiste" would boast about this!)

On 5/14/2015 1:27 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2015 21:17:44 -0700, Don Y wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>
> Trust me, describing how to deploy a control algorithm to people who have
> no clue is nowhere near as "obvious" before you've seen it done than after.
>
> I think that your artist friend should take this, and all of the other
> points, as challenges rather than as things to be excused away.  If he's

But none say anything concrete that will allow for a less sleep-inducing
production!  E.g., I think the idea of forcing the user to get up and
*change* the DVD after 45 minutes is the most practical solution.
And, let folks *wonder* as to why there's only 45 minutes on each DVD
instead of the 90-120 minutes encountered on other productions

("Oh, he probably wants to be able to charge more by claiming it is a
2-DVD set!!")

> got a different language than every other artist in the whole freaking
> world, then it is _his_ responsibility to make what he is saying
> accessible to his audience.  If he says something and a listener who is a
> competent practitioner can't make it out, then _he_ is a dumb-ass, not the
> listener.

The problem is, there is no "standard" language in this realm.
How do you evaluate beauty (Helens?)?  Creativity?  Abstractionism?
etc.

And, *who* gets to define them?  The lady in your church group
that happens to dabble on the side?  Or, the folks with works hanging
in museums??

I went to a show a few weeks back.  All "abstract" pieces by an accomplished
artist.  <shrug>  Looked like "spilled paint" to me but, hey, all these
other people ADMIRING his work can't be wrong(?)!  And, I sure wish I could
command the prices on his pieces for an equivalent amount of *my* time!

Thankfully, artist had some printed up literature re: his "philosophy",
"style", etc.  "Great!  He's effectively telling me how to evaluate his
work!  This should be easy!  All these terms, all these examples!!"

It was an exercise in futility.  "Balance"?  That should be relatively
easy to ascertain in a painting.  Probably has to do with the distribution
of <something> throughout the composition.  (I have *no* idea what
"tension" might mean!)

Maybe "light/dark-ness"?
Maybe "hots" vs. "cools"?
Maybe detail vs. absence of detail?
Maybe inorganic vs organic?
Maybe freeform vs. structured?
etc.

Nope.  I finally concluded that all he could *possibly* mean is
"the painting should 'balance' when suspended from it's geometric
center" (which, I'm sure, is NOT what he intended!)

On 5/13/2015 4:39 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2015 12:51:12 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> 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?
>
> Personally I hate video presentations.  There are *occasional* times
> when they're useful, and certainly short videos of how to do something
> are often helpful, but I want to read a well written paper, at my
> pace, not watch someone jump around like a demented flea.  That's
> certainly a form of entertainment, but for a different time (and Tim,
> could you post a video of that, I'm sure we'd all like to see it).

It's kinda hard to learn how to "paint" from a "well written paper"!  :>
Likewise, it's hard to *describe* ("written paper") various speech
sounds in any detail to which a casual reader would be "guaranteed" to
relate.  E.g., a description like "the 'a' sound in 'mash'" results
in folks from different parts of the country thinking you mean entirely
different sounds!

> I've been falling behind on what's going on with The Mill, simply
> because all the good information has been released as video
> presentations.  While I have mixed feelings about the viability of the
> project, there are some interesting ideas being worked on, so I do
> want to keep up.  Now Ivan is not a bad presenter (I have certainly
> seen *far* worse), and I've forced myself to watch a number of the
> presentations, but I'd rather find a toilet that needs scrubbing or
> something.

I'm sure I can find you a toilet to scrub!  :>

I think many video presentations are done "on the cheap"...  the
presenter hasn't considered the content and manner of presentation
in enough detail *before* turning the camera on.  They are hoping
that they can convey enough information simply by making the
same SORT of spiel that they've made, previously.

And, of course, there are certain things that can't be easily
scripted -- too many contingencies that can't be foreseen (what
if the artist places some paint in the 'wrong' place?  what if the
surgeon encounters something beyond 'normal variation' when
filming the surgery?  etc.

The advantage to a paper is you see all (existing) parts of it
as you are writing it.  And, can freely move back and "fix"
some portion that doesn't read well or take advantage of an
example that you would later be introducing (hindsight), etc.

And, even when *done*, it's relatively easy to alter it to
make last minute adjustments and corrections (most of my
tutorials/presentations have 5 or 6 documented revisions
since their initial release).

 From the "viewer/reader's" point of view, it's also much
easier to review material that you just read... or, that
you recall having read earlier.  Not so with videos
(where "search" is essentially a serial function).

Finally, it's a lot easier with written form to get someone
to fix grammar and vocabulary to some sort of minimal standard.
Not so with videos.

E.g., SWMBO watched another ~90 minute video from a "master painter".
"His paintings are *fabulous*!"  "Um, then why did you fall asleep
twice while viewing it?  And, end up taking most of the afternoon
to see it in its entirety??"  "He's hard to understand.  There
are no subtitles.  And, he uses terminology in different ways than
other artists have..."

"Oh."

> In short, I think the secret to a good video presentation is not doing
> one.
>
> But that's just me (I can't stand watching broadcast news either,
> please, please, please just let me read the article), I know a lot of
> people (perhaps most people) prefer the presentation.

Ha!  Have you ever read transcripts of news broadcasts?  "WTF?
THREE SENTENCES???  That's *all* they said?"

> An interactive session is different, but don't spend the presentation
> going over the minutia - that's what the accompanying materials are
> for.

Ideally, let the user/viewer/reader "play" with something so they
can discover that which you have been trying to describe.  "Ah, when
I reduce the open fraction of the glottis, the voice takes on *that*
sort of sound!"

> Anyway, my two cents.