Hi Bob, You're moving so quickly I've lost track of where I am in the following! Anyway, re: the video attached to your note here:
Looks good too me. The timing is such that I am able to verify the matrix addition in my head, which makes me feel comforted because I see that I have correctly understood your concept. Catherine On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:50 AM, bob therriault <[email protected]>wrote: > Hey Catherine, > > I prefer the symmetry as well, although we may find that having too many > moving objects in play complicates things for some viewers (something I > wouldn't expect, but that is the joy of exploring new disciplines). > My favourite transition right now is the superimposed + object, seen here: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG8yt5UAYP0&feature=player_embedded The > previous sparkle felt like it was a bit much, although some may find the > pyrotechnics enjoyable. :0 > > I am looking forward to usability testing as well; I think we have a good > range of choices (although there is always room for a different approach, if > someone will describe it for me). > > I think I'll spend some time today on Conjugate (+). The monadic > representation brings on a slightly different approach since it is less > symmetrical, but that is where Skip's recent suggestions have opened up more > possibilities. > > Cheers, bob > > On -Mar10-2010, at -Mar10-20106:46 AM, Catherine Lathwell wrote: > > > For me, the previous version was easier to understand. > > > > It doesn't make visual sense (for me) when your right argument covers up > > your left argument. > > > > Then when the totals happen on the left side, they total and the drop > down > > so quickly, I can't follow. It made MUCH more sense to have the numbers > > come together in the middle over the plus operation itself. And the > > symmetry of the movement to centre around the plus operation was > > aesthetically more satisfying to my taste. > > > > I like the visual clues of the previous version much better as well. The > > look of it was a little tacky (the sparkle part, I mean) but the idea is > > excellent. > > > > Can't wait to see the results of your usability testing. > > > > Catherine > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:49 PM, bob therriault <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> Hi Skip, > >> > >> I came to the same conclusion as you suggested below. I just posted the > >> results on Jwiki Plus (+) NuVoc: > >> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Vocabulary/plus > >> It's the last video in the list. The only changes that I would make is > that > >> I would reduce the 3X3 matirix to 2X2, but let me know what you think > the > >> next iteration should look like! :) > >> > >> Cheers, bob > >> > >> On -Mar9-2010, at -Mar9-20102:36 PM, Skip Cave wrote: > >> > >>> Don Guinn wrote: > >>>> Wouldn't sliding the right argument over the left and leaving a result > >> there > >>>> imply that the left argument is replaced with the result? > >>> Skip replies: > >>> > >>> I did not mean to imply that the final result sum would remain on the > >>> left side of the plus. The left and right arrays don't move at all in > >>> the animation. The two original arrays should never move or change > >>> throughout the whole process. This shows that the original variables > >>> were not altered or destroyed. > >>> > >>> I intended that a "ghost image" of the right array would move to the > >>> left and slide over the left array, implying the "lining up" of the > left > >>> and right array values. Only the ghost image of the right array moves > to > >>> line up with the left array. The right array stays where it began. > Ghost > >>> implies "transparent". This "lining up" is a key concept in J and needs > >>> to be clearly shown. > >>> > >>> Once the right ghost array is moved and aligned with the left array, > the > >>> values of the ghost array should change to the sum result array, and > the > >>> transparent ghost sum array should become "real" (non-transparent, or > >>> solid). This is the visual action that indicates the addition has been > >>> performed. > >>> > >>> Only the ghost array values gets changed from the left array values to > >>> the summed values when it is moved over the right array and becomes > >>> solid. The underlying right array doesn't change at all. > >>> > >>> Once the ghost sum array had been solidified, it should be moved down > >>> below the two original arrays. The two original arrays will be left as > >>> they were when the process started. > >>> > >>> The variable-width font messed up the display I was trying to show. > >>> Hopefully, this second cut ill look better. > >>> > >>> so you start with 2 + 3 > >>> > >>> and you end: 2 + 3 > >>> > >>> 5 NB. The 5 is the ghost array that started > >>> on the right, moved to the left, changed > >>> to the sum and solidified, and then > >>> moved below the original two numbers. > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> you start 1 + 2 3 4 > >>> > >>> NB. In this example it might be good to > >>> use a middle step to show how the > >>> left arg is replicated: > >>> > >>> middle step 1 1 1 + 2 3 4 NB. The replicated ones could be > "ghosted" > >>> to indicate their temporary status. > >>> > >>> you end 1 + 2 3 4 NB. The replicated ones disappear as the > >>> answer array is solidified and moved > >>> 3 4 5 under the original equation > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> you start 1 2 3 + 4 5 6 > >>> > >>> you end: 1 2 3 + 4 5 6 > >>> > >>> 5 7 9 > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> you start 1 2 3 1 2 3 > >>> 4 5 6 + 4 5 6 > >>> 7 8 9 7 8 9 > >>> > >>> you end 1 2 3 1 2 3 > >>> 4 5 6 + 4 5 6 > >>> 7 8 9 7 8 9 > >>> > >>> 2 4 6 > >>> 8 10 12 > >>> 4 16 18 > >>> > >>> > >>> Skip Cave > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Catherine Lathwell > > http://www.aprogramminglanguage.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Catherine Lathwell http://www.aprogramminglanguage.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
