OT? Criteria for LENGTHY presentations

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

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. :<

[..]

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

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

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. )

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. )

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.

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

First Rule: Never, never, never, never, never, never sneeze.

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

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

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

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].

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

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

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")

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

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.... )

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?

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.

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!)

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...]

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".

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)

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!

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!)

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!!")

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. 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 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!)

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'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."

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

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!"