Hi,
> I think Bryan's idea is wonderfully practical. What's more,
> it sounds easy to achieve. You just need a 'swf-activity'
> launcher, and a script to sugarize .SWF files into .xo bundles
> which launch as fullscreen activities.
Oh, that sounds good. I should clarify -- I don't ha
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 15:16, Bill Kerr wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Bryan Berry wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 15:18 -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>>
>> > (3) We need lots more Activities.
>>
>> While there is consensus on this point, there is not consensus on the
>> best way to ge
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Bryan Berry wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 15:18 -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>
> > (3) We need lots more Activities.
>
> While there is consensus on this point, there is not consensus on the
> best way to get a lot more Activities. That is, pulling a lot more
> dev
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 06:12:40PM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
> > Can you please cite a few examples to help ground me further?
>
> Let's try:
>
> * the Etoys/Debian fight?
> * the F6/F7 timeframe Java fight?
> * the Debian/Fedora fight?
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 06:12:40PM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
> Can you please cite a few examples to help ground me further?
Let's try:
* the Etoys/Debian fight?
* the F6/F7 timeframe Java fight?
* the Debian/Fedora fight? (and the Ubuntu/Debian fight?)
* the activity packaging formats
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 04:01:34PM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:25:13PM -0800, Bryan Berry wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 15:18 -0500, Walter
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 04:01:34PM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:25:13PM -0800, Bryan Berry wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 15:18 -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>>>
(3) We need lots more Activities.
>>>
>>> Wh
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:25:13PM -0800, Bryan Berry wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 15:18 -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>>
>>> (3) We need lots more Activities.
>>
>> While there is consensus on this point, there is not consensus on the
>>
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:25:13PM -0800, Bryan Berry wrote:
>On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 15:18 -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>
>> (3) We need lots more Activities.
>
>While there is consensus on this point, there is not consensus on the
>best way to get a lot more Activities. That is, pulling a lot more
>
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Bryan Berry wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 15:18 -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>
> > (3) We need lots more Activities.
>
> While there is consensus on this point, there is not consensus on the
> best way to get a lot more Activities. That is, pulling a lot more
> dev
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 15:18 -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
> (3) We need lots more Activities.
While there is consensus on this point, there is not consensus on the
best way to get a lot more Activities. That is, pulling a lot more
developers into building learning activities that run on Sugar.
--
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 15:18 -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
> I think we have consensus on three issues:
>
> (1) We should try to support better integration of more development
> environments into Sugar (e.g., cookbook Flash and Javascript support
> of the Journal);
> (2) We should encourage Activity
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Bryan Berry wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 14:54 -0500, Wade Brainerd wrote:
>
> I don't understand the construing of constructionism with "exclusively
>> high-level math and science" and I don't quite what you mean
>> by
>> "foundational ski
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 14:54 -0500, Wade Brainerd wrote:
I don't understand the construing of constructionism with "exclusively
> high-level math and science" and I don't quite what you mean
> by
> "foundational skills". I don't think anyone would argue that
> we don
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
> I don't think anyone is arguing that we should preclude people from
> using whatever tools they have at hand.
>
I think the question is how well the Sugar community *supports* using using
a particular tool (Flash, Javascript) by making it con
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 12:30 -0500, Wade Brainerd wrote:
>
> I think Bryan's idea is wonderfully practical. What's more, it sounds
> easy to achieve. You just need a 'swf-activity' launcher, and a
> script to sugarize .SWF files into .xo bundles which launch as
> fullscreen activities.
that's a
I think Bryan's idea is wonderfully practical. What's more, it sounds easy
to achieve. You just need a 'swf-activity' launcher, and a script to
sugarize .SWF files into .xo bundles which launch as fullscreen activities.
Building it around Browse is probably a bad idea (re: the .xol suggestion).
On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 11:06:07PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
> > Many people will likely hate my promotion of Flash for learning
> > activities. It's OK if you hate me and Flash. I do hope you
> > recognize that we need a more developer-centric activity framework
> > that uses web technologi
18 matches
Mail list logo
