Hi Ian,
Just a follow up to the extra information supplied by Youtube after the
animation completes. This seems to be a function of the size of the viewing
window.
If anyone knows of another way to control this, let me know. In the meantime,
using less screen space is probably better, although I do have to work harder
to keep the fonts legible.
Cheers, bob
On -Mar5-2010, at -Mar5-20104:49 PM, bob therriault wrote:
> Thanks Ian,
>
> I appreciate the kudos on the decorative value, although Apple gets most of
> the credit for providing the raw materials.
>
> Regarding the challenges of showing Plus (+) working on vectors as opposed to
> matrices, I find it better to restrict the subject matter to the primitive
> Plus (+). As soon as I begin showing the different argument combinations, the
> animation becomes much longer (and less useful as reference). A previous
> effort based on Roger's suggestions went down this road, and may find a home
> as a tutorial, but as a short animated reference it was a flop. I choose to
> show the simplest scalar case (providing a very basic illustration of the
> operation mechanics) and then the matrix/matrix case to show the effect of
> the 0 0 0 rank. To go into more detail with rank options should probably be
> in the animation for the Rank (") conjunction instead of Plus (+).
>
> I completely agree that to evaluate the animations requires a beginner's eye
> (and I look forward to beginner feedback), but in the meantime the experience
> of 'old hands' can ensure that we are coaxing newcomers in the right
> direction. An example was the change made to the random matrix evaluation in
> the previous versions. Even though the randomness avoided an assumption of
> order, it distracted from the parallel approach to processing matrix
> arguments.
>
> Anyway, the more responses (especially from newcomers), the more effectively
> we can reach a clear, quick way of representing the functionality of J
> primitives.
>
> Cheers, bob
>
> ps. I think the 'extra' information that youtube supplies may be either a
> result of a custom download size, or the larger window required for the 3X3
> version. In my browsers (Chrome and Safari), the smaller windows do a much
> better job of staying on topic after they have performed. Hopefully this will
> be cleaned up with the next upload. bt
>
>
> On -Mar5-2010, at -Mar5-20103:45 PM, Ian Clark wrote:
>
>> Attractive movies from a decorative pov. Smart FX.
>>
>> But I can't follow what's going on. I thought i knew how Plus worked
>> with vectors -- but that still doesn't help me understand movies 2 and
>> 3. Shouldn't it be working the other way round?
>>
>> Maybe Plus is the wrong example to illustrate helpful teaching
>> principles. Too facile? Doesn't bode well for more complicated
>> primitives.
>>
>> But I'm not the one to judge. You should disregard whatever anybody
>> says who already knows how Plus works. People are demonstrably bad at
>> introspecting their own dawning awareness, let alone other people's.
>> And we haven't even begun to consider variations in cognitive style.
>> Can we find some representative novices who actually don't know how
>> (vector) Plus works, and see if it "enhances their understanding" --
>> however that's to be measured? Some serious experimental design
>> required here.
>>
>> As Groucho Marx said: "go out and get me a four-year-old!"
>>
>> BTW YouTube has suddenly sprouted unhelpful functionality. After
>> running the example the window clutters with irrelevant junk, which is
>> not a reassuring sight. Not your fault Bob -- and I can't see what you
>> can do about it.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:57 PM, bob therriault <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hey everybody,
>>>
>>> I've posted three versions of the Plus (+) animation on the Jwiki here:
>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Vocabulary/plus
>>> These incorporate previous suggestions of including J code, colliding 3d
>>> matrix planes (with explosions!) and 2d rearrangements. I have my
>>> preference, but I would love to have feedback from a wider sample.
>>>
>>> Cheers, bob
>>>
>>> On -Feb23-2010, at -Feb23-20105:22 PM, 0j1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> You could show the J code using variables such as x and y, and display the
>>>> values of x and y graphically without showing how they were created.
>>>>
>>>> bob therriault wrote:
>>>>> Hi Skip,
>>>>> The challenge I faced with showing the J code for these reference videos
>>>>> was
>>>>> how to create a matrix without introducing either the Shape ($) or Integer
>>>>> (i.) verbs into the explanation (which increases both the duration and the
>>>>> cognitive loading). For the tutorial approach, I think the 'coding
>>>>> window' is
>>>>> essential, but not so much for the reference. Any ideas on how I can get
>>>>> the
>>>>> 'code' back into the reference video efficiently would be welcome.
>>>>> Cheers, bob
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
