I'm not anti-Powerpoint (or Keynote) by any means--far from it--but I am frequently disappointed by the material that people use it to frame. I promised a link to an essay on this matter by the rather wonderful Edward Tufte: The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint. This isn't the article itself, sadly (for which you'll have to pay a pretty nominal sum), but if this is your introduction to ET's work, enjoy!
I shall invite Ingrid Pearson (a colleague at RCM) across to Guildhall for lunch and an afternoon reviewing Keynote-framed arguments (what an offer, eh?) to see if I can persuade her not only that it's not the software's fault that these things turn out badly more often than we'd like (which she already knows, of course), but--a bigger challenge--that Keynote can actually contribute to the development of an elegant and memorable argument.
More seriously, pro- or anti-slide software aside, how do we frame practice-based research arguments successfully? The doctoral student presentations at 'MIDAS VII' were certainly food for thought.
Monday, April 23, 2007
software + projector = digital whiteboard
At the end of last week I attended the two-day ‘MIDAS VII' conference: our six-monthly standing business meeting and the annual research student conference, hosted this time around by The Royal College of Music in London. Darla Crispin (RCM Head of Graduate School) was our chair for these couple of days, which she ran with her usual light touch and perceptivity. She was running (in the other sense) the London marathon the day after the conference, which I hope turned out well for her—it was a very hot day for the runners, I think.
I few delegates asked about the software application I used during the ‘reportage’ session at the end of Saturday. I said I’d write a few notes here about this and the other two programmes I’m using on trial for doing that sort of electronic whiteboard job.
The app I used on Saturday afternoon is Cmap. You can read about it and download it here. Their website practices what they preach: it takes the form of a hyperlink-rich concept map itself. It’s freeware, the result of a research project funded by a consortium of American universities; there are versions to run on most platforms. I was using it in a very simple way, just to record key notions and cluster these according to their themes. I tend to use it in my teaching and supervising this way and have been doing for a few weeks. It seems very stable. You can link ideas by lines (as per a ‘mind map’), but the software is actually designed to build what it calls ‘concept maps’. As far as I can tell, without delving very deep in to theory, the difference between these ways of representing relationships is that ‘concept maps’ always include a word on the linking line to describe the nature of the link. At the moment, I find this more annoying than helpful. I’d much rather be free to choose whether to record this definition or not, which is very easy to add to a mind map (via an intermediate node) if I want to.
I use the programme frequently and as a ‘digital whiteboard’, it works well. You can colour nodes very easily and group them (then expand or minimise the group) in a couple of key-strokes. It produces an attractive map and has the most gentle of learning curves. You can save your maps in the programme’s own format (which you can share in an online ‘soup’ as they call it … you are given storage space on the university’s server when you sign up to download the programme) or as PDF, JPG, XML and a few other media that I don’t know about!
It’s Cmap’s pleasing visual output that pulls me away from Tinderbox when I’m preparing a map to share with a group. Tinderbox (currently OS X only; Windows in development) is a more sophisticated environment in which to think, not least with its integral multi-perspective ways to read the same data, but it’s a bit ‘bare bones’ in appearance: rather muddy default colours; square boxes (that don’t expand to fit text contents without a bit of work); no ‘snap to frame’ possibility. It’s a very good piece of software for organising ideas, for sure, but although I trust it’s an attractive piece of code (I’m sure the developer would have it no other way), it is not itself very attractive. Can we have brains and beauty in one parcel, or is that going against the natural order of things?
Finally, Mindjet's MindManager (OS X and Windows). This is new to me, but I’ve got off to a good start with it. My gripe is that the programme tends to presuppose that the items you record in it are linked (as opposed to “might be going to be linked”). As soon as you place one item near other, it connects them. Now, my way of thinking is to ‘brainstorm’ my ideas first (i.e., scatter them to the four winds) and then work out their relative proximities and relationships. The programme prefers you to build your map in a more systematic manner than I like to, but I’m sure some will find this less of a bug-bear than I seem to.
I few delegates asked about the software application I used during the ‘reportage’ session at the end of Saturday. I said I’d write a few notes here about this and the other two programmes I’m using on trial for doing that sort of electronic whiteboard job.
The app I used on Saturday afternoon is Cmap. You can read about it and download it here. Their website practices what they preach: it takes the form of a hyperlink-rich concept map itself. It’s freeware, the result of a research project funded by a consortium of American universities; there are versions to run on most platforms. I was using it in a very simple way, just to record key notions and cluster these according to their themes. I tend to use it in my teaching and supervising this way and have been doing for a few weeks. It seems very stable. You can link ideas by lines (as per a ‘mind map’), but the software is actually designed to build what it calls ‘concept maps’. As far as I can tell, without delving very deep in to theory, the difference between these ways of representing relationships is that ‘concept maps’ always include a word on the linking line to describe the nature of the link. At the moment, I find this more annoying than helpful. I’d much rather be free to choose whether to record this definition or not, which is very easy to add to a mind map (via an intermediate node) if I want to.
I use the programme frequently and as a ‘digital whiteboard’, it works well. You can colour nodes very easily and group them (then expand or minimise the group) in a couple of key-strokes. It produces an attractive map and has the most gentle of learning curves. You can save your maps in the programme’s own format (which you can share in an online ‘soup’ as they call it … you are given storage space on the university’s server when you sign up to download the programme) or as PDF, JPG, XML and a few other media that I don’t know about!
It’s Cmap’s pleasing visual output that pulls me away from Tinderbox when I’m preparing a map to share with a group. Tinderbox (currently OS X only; Windows in development) is a more sophisticated environment in which to think, not least with its integral multi-perspective ways to read the same data, but it’s a bit ‘bare bones’ in appearance: rather muddy default colours; square boxes (that don’t expand to fit text contents without a bit of work); no ‘snap to frame’ possibility. It’s a very good piece of software for organising ideas, for sure, but although I trust it’s an attractive piece of code (I’m sure the developer would have it no other way), it is not itself very attractive. Can we have brains and beauty in one parcel, or is that going against the natural order of things?
Finally, Mindjet's MindManager (OS X and Windows). This is new to me, but I’ve got off to a good start with it. My gripe is that the programme tends to presuppose that the items you record in it are linked (as opposed to “might be going to be linked”). As soon as you place one item near other, it connects them. Now, my way of thinking is to ‘brainstorm’ my ideas first (i.e., scatter them to the four winds) and then work out their relative proximities and relationships. The programme prefers you to build your map in a more systematic manner than I like to, but I’m sure some will find this less of a bug-bear than I seem to.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Leiden and Valencia
I’ve not posted here for a long time now: I’ve found it really difficult to meet my own aspiration to write a little and often. There is such a back-log of things I had hoped to write about that it won’t be possible to do so now; having realised this, it’s become easier again to write something rather than nothing.
I went to Valencia yesterday, courtesy of Hector Perez Lopez’s invite to speak at the international research seminar series that he organises at the Universidad Politecnica. This was the first time that I’ve worked with an interpreter to give a paper, but Lobke Sprenkeling (a research student and recorder-player) did an excellent job moving between her second and third languages (she’s Dutch) and, along with Hector, allowed me to roam freely within my topic. The material I presented was an extension of a paper I gave in Leiden at the last MIDAS meeting in December, which was hosted by Frans de Ruiter. Both of these invites have been welcome and timely: I’ve used them as a lever to get myself to clarify my ongoing thinking and to learn how to build a multimedia document in Keynote to illustrate my points.
The material I surveyed and critiqued in these papers included:
Valentine, L. 2004. The activity of rhetoric within the process of a designer’s thinking. PhD thesis with CD-ROM, University of Dundee.
Meyn, N. 2006. Excavating the future: acting and the art of classical song. DVD. London: GSMD.
Dixon, S. 1999. Chameleons 2: theatre in a movie screen. CD-ROM. Privately published. Accompanying article: ‘Digits, discource and documenation: performance research and hypermedia.’ In The Drama Review, 43.1 (T161), spring 1999, 152-75.
Murnau, F. 1926. Faust: a German folk tale. DVD. Masters of the cinema series. London: Eureka, 2006.
I am eagerly awaiting the delivery of two new multimedia research reports, one of which may well be in the post by now (the other is still being worked on in post-production, it seems):
Bilson, M. 2005. Knowing the score. DVD. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. [micro-site here]
Emmerson, S. Forthcoming. Around a rondo. DVD and DVD-ROM. Queensland, Australia: Griffith University Press.
As a small example of our practice-as-research zeitgeist, without knowing of Stephen Emmerson’s ‘Around a Rondo’ project, Hector has himself been working with technologist colleagues in Valencia to code an intuitive-to-use, platform-agnostic multimedia writer. Here’s a link to the abstract of their recent conference paper in Cambridge. One of the features they are tweaking will allow readers to listen to an audio clip or watch a video clip while the relevant score scrolls by synchronously, ticker-tape style. This facility is something that I know Stephen’s document will be providing, having seen a preview of it in Leiden. It’s an impressive achievement and, like most really good ideas, looks like something which I can imagine taking for granted within five minutes of first engaging with it. When containers are that good, they disappear.
I went to Valencia yesterday, courtesy of Hector Perez Lopez’s invite to speak at the international research seminar series that he organises at the Universidad Politecnica. This was the first time that I’ve worked with an interpreter to give a paper, but Lobke Sprenkeling (a research student and recorder-player) did an excellent job moving between her second and third languages (she’s Dutch) and, along with Hector, allowed me to roam freely within my topic. The material I presented was an extension of a paper I gave in Leiden at the last MIDAS meeting in December, which was hosted by Frans de Ruiter. Both of these invites have been welcome and timely: I’ve used them as a lever to get myself to clarify my ongoing thinking and to learn how to build a multimedia document in Keynote to illustrate my points.
The material I surveyed and critiqued in these papers included:
Valentine, L. 2004. The activity of rhetoric within the process of a designer’s thinking. PhD thesis with CD-ROM, University of Dundee.
Meyn, N. 2006. Excavating the future: acting and the art of classical song. DVD. London: GSMD.
Dixon, S. 1999. Chameleons 2: theatre in a movie screen. CD-ROM. Privately published. Accompanying article: ‘Digits, discource and documenation: performance research and hypermedia.’ In The Drama Review, 43.1 (T161), spring 1999, 152-75.
Murnau, F. 1926. Faust: a German folk tale. DVD. Masters of the cinema series. London: Eureka, 2006.
I am eagerly awaiting the delivery of two new multimedia research reports, one of which may well be in the post by now (the other is still being worked on in post-production, it seems):
Bilson, M. 2005. Knowing the score. DVD. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. [micro-site here]
Emmerson, S. Forthcoming. Around a rondo. DVD and DVD-ROM. Queensland, Australia: Griffith University Press.
As a small example of our practice-as-research zeitgeist, without knowing of Stephen Emmerson’s ‘Around a Rondo’ project, Hector has himself been working with technologist colleagues in Valencia to code an intuitive-to-use, platform-agnostic multimedia writer. Here’s a link to the abstract of their recent conference paper in Cambridge. One of the features they are tweaking will allow readers to listen to an audio clip or watch a video clip while the relevant score scrolls by synchronously, ticker-tape style. This facility is something that I know Stephen’s document will be providing, having seen a preview of it in Leiden. It’s an impressive achievement and, like most really good ideas, looks like something which I can imagine taking for granted within five minutes of first engaging with it. When containers are that good, they disappear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
