RE: The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint
Hi Sean, I think this topic becomes how one shapes the audience's thoughts and does the audience reaction shape the presentation. This becomes using XML to support an adaptive interface/presentation. I think of it like the difference between bar bands that don't use set lists and concert bands that do. If there is any opportunity for significant changes between each song/topic, it is a good idea to use a set list. If the change is reaction from the audience, then an adaptive/improvisatory talk is useful. In both cases, the presenter/performer needs bits to do to fill. Standup is a very hard act. IMO, people who don't either bring a paper or provide a redistributable set are doing standup and their presentation is more likely to have a higher mixture of polished bits to detail. Is the presentation well-rehearsed, a noodle, or both. One asks about the purpose of the presentation. Is it a factual presentation, a rhetorical presentation, some combination? What do I want the audience to take away? Is this meant to be a repeatable performance? Good insight. XML is torn between the cognitive styles of programmers for whom markup was not originally designed and authors for whom it was. Note the recurrent attempts to reshape XML Schema in particular and XML in general to be object-oriented programming languages because the language designer insists on reflecting more of their own runtime designs in a language that is really only good for encoding the properties of their data. The tool often shapes the goal. len From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean.mcgrath@p...] [Len Bullard] >The tool absolutely shapes the way we think about topics[...] Indeed. Programmers are an excellent example of this. At XML 2003 I had occasion to remark that a Prolog programmer can write Prolog in *any* language. This is of course a variant on the classic observation about Fortran programmers. It is fascinating to conjecture which types of cognitive shaping by tools are good and which ones bad. I will leave you with two words: Visual Basic Sean P.S. One of the fascinating things about the XML world is that XML programmers work with highly structured text - computer programs. I think it is interesting that they predominantly use text editors (emacs, vi etc.) in their work. I.e. *non structured* editing tools. The same people, by and large, think that authors/editors *should* use structured editing tools. An interesting juxtaposition of goose and gander.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format