Paul Martz wrote: > I'm not sure what specifically hurt our proposal last year. I know our > proposal contained little in the way of curriculum and course notes. For the > s2008 proposal, we'll have OSG books as course material, plus Bob and I will > probably contribute some of the curriculum we've developed for our courses.
The thing that hurt our proposal is that there were a lot of API-specific courses submitted and they couldn't accept all of them, so they accepted none of them. Here is the relevant quote from their response: '"Introduction to OpenSceneGraph" was very well received by the committee, and it was with great difficultly that the course was not accepted. The flexibility on the duration of the course, and open-source nature of the topic were well received. However, the courses program received a large number of API-related courses, and in consideration of the size of audience for each, it was decided that there may not be wide enough applicability to the SIGGRAPH audience.' Looking at the courses accepted this year, there are only two API-specific courses: OpenGL and Direct3D 10. I guess the potential audience size has a lot to do with it. Perhaps we could ask the committee what target size they considered. Our proposal was a little short on sample course notes. Now that there is a Quick Start Guide and other documentation forthcoming, we can point to it in our proposal next year and state that it will be included in the course notes. This should also improve our chances for acceptance. We might want to have two courses: a beginner's course and an advanced techniques course. Here's one reviewer's suggestion: "I would like to see the course divided as described in the redesign. I would like to see the intended audiences to be more focused, one for beginners who understand 3D graphics and may or may not have knowledge of using a scenegraph, and one that is for experienced OSG users or experienced scenegraph/OGL developers who are looking for updates on new features, advanced uses of particular nodekits, novel uses, or how to build extensions. Change the prereques and go. I think the course(s) would be more approachable/accessable to more attendees and would make better use of attendees time." Another theme in the reviewers' comments was that they could not tell which parts of the course were designed for beginners and which were designed for more advanced users. This should be addressed in the next proposal. > > For the s2008 proposal, we should note the standing-room-only crowd at the > s2007 BOF, and the fact that BOF time restrictions prevented us from > reaching the newbie crowd. This might help make the case for a course. There > are obviously many people out there who want to learn more about OSG. > I agree. This might make a stronger case for acceptance. I think we should also design it from the ground up to be very flexible as far as appealing to newbies and experts alike. There are lots of aspects of OSG that I don't understand very well, despite having worked with it for about four years now. I am still using OSG 1.2 for my project. > If our proposal gets shot down again, another possibility is to tack an OSG > course onto the start or end of SIGGRAPH, much like Bob and I are doing with > the Terrain Summit 07 conference this September. This has the downside of > extending an already long week, and also doesn't benefit from advertisement > on SIGGRAPH's courses Web site. > -Paul This is an option. However, since Siggraph is moving to a Monday-Friday schedule, I would probably not be available to help present the course. But I would finally be able to attend the whole conference. _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
