Years ago when the Discovery channel was about truly scientific programs and not just sensationalism, there was a professor teaching physics. I can't remember his name, but the program was his lectures to a class. The video showed on the program was enhanced with a few short graphic videos including animation, probably not available to the class. They illustrated a point the professor was making and his voice continued as the graphic ran. It was very effective.
The point I'm trying to make is that well thought out graphics used sparingly are good, but a only a graphic presentation by itself is too impersonal. On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 3:18 PM, bob therriault <bobtherria...@mac.com>wrote: > Roger, > > I think you are exactly right. > Teaching x i. x is clearer and could easily be followed by instruction > regarding the ~ (reflexive) adverb > > thanks for pointing this out. > > cheers, bob > > On -Feb2-2010, at -Feb2-201011:17 AM, Roger Hui wrote: > > >> Thanks for the information that = (self classify) may not be the > >> most efficient approach for the machine, but pedagogically there > >> may be conceptual advantages to giving the learner a single step > >> solution, compared to the i.~ which would require an explanation > >> of adverbs as well. Once again I am finding the fastest way to > >> learn is to teach (or attempt to teach ;) ) > > > > As far as the beginner is concerned, both = and i.~ are single step. > > You don't necessarily have to explain the expression; instead, > > you can explain the result: > > > > x=: 'mississippi' > > = x > > 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 > > 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 > > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 > > i.~ x > > 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 8 8 1 > > x i. x > > 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 8 8 1 > > > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > > m i s s i s s i p p i > > 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 8 8 1 > > > > I wasn't not necessarily talking about machine efficiency. > > =x takes more room on the screen, and in your brain. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: bob therriault <bobtherria...@mac.com> > > Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010 10:50 > > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] The Ambiguous Dictionary > > To: Programming forum <programming@jsoftware.com> > > > >> Thanks Roger, > >> > >> I had been thinking about using + (plus) as well because it can > >> generalize as a template to other arithmetic 0 rank dyadic > >> verbs. Your examples provide a starting point for the concepts. > >> I'll see what I can come up with. > >> > >> Thanks for the information that = (self classify) may not be the > >> most efficient approach for the machine, but pedagogically there > >> may be conceptual advantages to giving the learner a single step > >> solution, compared to the i.~ which would require an explanation > >> of adverbs as well. Once again I am finding the fastest way to > >> learn is to teach (or attempt to teach ;) ) > >> > >> cheers, bob > >> > >> On -Feb2-2010, at -Feb2-20109:47 AM, Roger Hui wrote: > >> > >>>> Take a J primitive which is relatively simple but maybe hard > >> for a > >>>> beginner to intuit, like monadic "=" (self-classify). Not something > >>>> with bells and whistles like ";:". Personally I'd like to see an > >>>> animation of self-classify, because coming from APL I'm still not > >>>> altogether comfy with it in my own mind. > >>> > >>> Use + (plus). It'd be so "obvious" that the viewer/reader > >>> would think "How else would you have it?" > >>> > >>> 2 + 3 > >>> 5 > >>> > >>> 2 + 3 4 5 > >>> 5 6 7 > >>> 20 30 10 + 7 > >>> 27 37 17 > >>> > >>> 20 30 10 + 3 4 5 > >>> 23 34 15 > >>> 20 30 + 3 4 5 > >>> |length error > >>> | 20 30 +3 4 5 > >>> > >>> i. 3 4 > >>> 0 1 2 3 > >>> 4 5 6 7 > >>> 8 9 10 11 > >>> > >>> 2 + i.3 4 > >>> 2 3 4 5 > >>> 6 7 8 9 > >>> 10 11 12 13 > >>> 20 40 60 + i.3 4 > >>> 20 21 22 23 > >>> 44 45 46 47 > >>> 68 69 70 71 > >>> (i.3 4) + 100 200 19 > >>> 100 101 102 103 > >>> 204 205 206 207 > >>> 27 28 29 30 > >>> 20 40 60 80 + i.3 4 > >>> |length error > >>> | 20 40 60 80 +i.3 4 > >>> > >>> (i.3 4) + (10 + i.3 4) > >>> 10 12 14 16 > >>> 18 20 22 24 > >>> 26 28 30 32 > >>> > >>> p.s. I believe that the current monadic = is not one of > >>> the better verbs in J. The representation is wasteful, > >> being > >>> approximately O(n^2), and if the representation is wasteful > >>> then the implementation is necessarily wasteful. > >>> For self-classification i.~ is much better. Moreover, > >> the "key" adverb > >>> (not available at the time the monad = was first defined) > >>> has made a self-classification verb much less needed. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: Ian Clark <earthspo...@googlemail.com> > >>> Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010 8:59 > >>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] The Ambiguous Dictionary > >>> To: Programming forum <programming@jsoftware.com> > >>> > >>>> URL embedding is something I must leave to others. I'd be starting > >>>> from cold as regards Moinmoin. Maybe we should simply fall > >> back on > >>>> html? Remind me why we need anything fancier. > >>>> > >>>> Voice-over I have strong feelings against. Distracting, ineffective > >>>> and culturally dependent. Traditional and reassuring maybe, > >> but only > >>>> in your own mother tongue, accent and mannerisms. Nothing > >> going for > >>>> it. > >>>> > >>>> And I say that as an ex-lecturer (and courseware developer). > >>>> > >>>> Use soothing music. It's only wallpaper. And then only in a YouTube > >>>> showcase, not in a serious expository text. > >>>> > >>>> The same goes for moving text, or "titles" as I think movie makers > >>>> call them. Only good for identifying the footage, like a > >>>> clapper-board. The effort to read it can distract the viewer > >>>> from the > >>>> object you want him/her to attend to. There will always be > >>>> accompanying text. I think the purpose of animation in technical > >>>> exposition is to convey spatial concepts non-verbally. Therefore > >>>> verbiage is nothing but a distraction. > >>>> > >>>> I like your use of coloured dots. It conveys succintly that the > >>>> content of a given cell doesn't matter: just the interplay between > >>>> cells. If you use numbers, or even letters, the viewer wastes > >>>> brain-cycles processing these before grasping they are of no > >>>> importance. If you need more modal dimensions: shape and > >> size. As > >>>> regards shape, chicks and tadpoles may be slightly better > >> than squares > >>>> and circles, but one must balance being boring against being > >>>> distracting. I'd err on the "boring" side to start with, and > >>>> spice-up > >>>> judiciously. People assume animations have got to be Loony > >>>> Toons. But > >>>> someone prepared to consider programming in any language, let > >>>> alone J, > >>>> needs an attention-span longer than a 5 year old TV watcher. > >>>> > >>>> The viewer may have to study the animation for quite some > >> time to > >>>> absorb its principle. Eye candy soon gets irritating. See the > >>>> "grasshopper escapement" animation, halfway down in > >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison -and work out how it > >>>> manages to be friction-free. Jiminy Cricket would soon begin > >> to grate. > >>>> > >>>> Further to that example, I think continuous animation loops > >> are good. > >>>> (Though it's nice to be able to stop 'em!) > >>>> > >>>> Take a J primitive which is relatively simple but maybe hard > >> for a > >>>> beginner to intuit, like monadic "=" (self-classify). Not something > >>>> with bells and whistles like ";:". Personally I'd like to see an > >>>> animation of self-classify, because coming from APL I'm still not > >>>> altogether comfy with it in my own mind. > >>>> > >>>> And remember the better it conveys its message, the more > >> trivial and > >>>> "obvious" it looks and the less time the viewer spends > >> looking > >>>> at it. > >>>> It's why writers of public notices are always too pompous and > >> prolix:>> they don't want to appear dumb. It's really quite > >> unrewarding > >>>> work, in > >>>> a way. > >>>> > >>>> Ian > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:56 AM, bob therriault > >>>> <bobtherria...@mac.com> wrote: > >>>>> Thanks for the review, Ian > >>>>> > >>>>> It definitely needs to be sped up and, although music could > >> be > >>>> added, it was going to be finished with a voice over and > >> sound > >>>> effects. I hadn't got around to final version, but when I > >> read > >>>> Oleg's comment about animation, I exported the 'work in > >>>> progress' to YouTube. YouTube does provide a string for > >>>> embedding, but I didn't think it would work within an email. > >>>>> > >>>>> I would be happy to work on animations as they were needed > >> for > >>>> specific primitives. My experience says that there is a > >> certain > >>>> level of fundamental understanding that is required before > >>>> animations are really effective, before that they tend > >> towards > >>>> eye-candy (or worse misleading). If you have a primitive in > >> mind > >>>> let me know and we can go through some iterations to see how > >>>> productive we are. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, bob > >>>>> > >>>>> ps. you can put videos into J labs as well, by using the > >>>> jbrowser file and calling specific URL's hiding it within the > >>>> PREPARE section. > >>>>> eg. > >>>>> PREPARE > >>>>> launch_jbrowser_ 'http://www.apple.com/ca/ipodtouch/what- > >>>> is/pocket-computer.html' > >>>>> PREPARE > >>>>> It has been a while since I have done this and the result is > >>>> that a whole browser window will open, but when refined this > >> may > >>>> have some possibilities. I'm not as sure how this will work > >> with > >>>> the new browser interface. bt > >>>>> > >>>>> On -Feb1-2010, at -Feb1-20106:43 PM, Ian Clark wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I like it, Bob. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The minimalism may arise from it being a first effort, but > >> it shows > >>>>>> it's neither necessary nor wise to over-egg the pudding. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Minor crits: could do with being sped up. Needs music. > >>>> YouTube has a > >>>>>> library of free soundtracks: you can just attach one for now. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> YouTube movies can be easily embedded in your own html > >> file. > >>>> Stefano & > >>>>>> I have done it. They generate you an <object> to > >>>> copy/paste. See > >>>>>> source of > >> http://www.maxclark.me.uk/undeadtree/interspex.htm > >>>> for an > >>>>>> example. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But how to do it with MoinMoin? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So... are you offering to do a 15 second movie for each J > >>>> primitive?>> > >>>>>> Ian > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:08 PM, bob therriault > >>>> <bobtherria...@mac.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi Oleg and Ian, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODxv498p4ME > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This isn't about a specific function, but is an animation > >> i > >>>> put together to explain why it is useful to organize > >> information > >>>> into arrays. I developed it on keynote, but haven't yet put a > >>>> soundtrack to it. It's not really high end, but it wasn't too > >>>> hard to put together either. Let me know if you have more > >>>> specific ideas for animations. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cheers, bob > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On -Feb1-2010, at -Feb1-201012:50 PM, Oleg Kobchenko wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> From: Ian Clark <earthspo...@googlemail.com> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> One winning instructional strategy, including Gilman > >> and Rose, > >>>>>>>>>> is telling a story for each piece of material. Such stories, > >>>>>>>>>> among other things, may revolve around exo-paradigms. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> When I used to program in FORTH (sign of a mis-spent > >>>> youth) one > >>>>>>>>> well-beloved primer in the FORTH community was > >> illustrated with > >>>>>>>>> engaging but instructive cartoons. Thus the standard > >> word > >>>> SWOP was a > >>>>>>>>> little two-headed dragon that did what you'd guess with > >>>> objects on the > >>>>>>>>> stack. Can anyone remember the book and remind me of its > >> title?>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Starting FORTH, by Leo Brodie > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/sf2/sf2.html > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This is fun stuff all right. And a good read for a vacation. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What I was thinking for APL/J for a long time was > >>>>>>>> an interactive or animated illustrator of the operations, > >>>>>>>> especially those that manipulate multidimensional and > >>>>>>>> nested structures. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I know someone (http://www.leelamaria.com/) who could do > >>>> us a wodge of > >>>>>>>>> cartoons like that. Shall I try to get them interested? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
