[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 2003-12-15 09:46 -0500, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>I just finished presenting an 8 hour tutorial and two presentations using
>PowerPoint
>...
>What is the "cognitive style" of writing documents in XML vs. PowerPoint,
>Word, or FrameMaker?
Isn't cognitive style based on the nature of the information rather than
the tool being used?
>Do the tools we use to write affect the way we think?
Absolutely! Which means you should use a tool that matches with the way
you need to think.
I have to project my tutorial and presentation materials to an audience,
but the act of projection is the final step of the process. My cognitive
structure I've chosen for teaching is "course/module/lesson/frame/pane"
where each pane represents something that I want my students to see and to
which I talk and present. Whether that final pane is shown using HTML,
PowerPoint, a page generated by XSL-FO, or whatever, that doesn't change
the way I *think* about the material I'm teaching.
It happens I use HTML for projecting a pane because I have more flexibility
for working with long panes where content flows off the bottom of the
screen. I can scroll up and down, jump around the page, and do what I need
that I cannot do with a fixed-frame-sized Microsoft PowerPoint or
OpenOffice Impress.
So, to think about my course or presentation as just that, I use
hierarchical XML as my tool because the non-hierarchical desktop
presentation tools don't reflect the way I think about teaching my material.
In fact I think using my XML structure improves my presentations because it
forces me to think in the pedagogical fashion that I've modeled.
I've noted XML-related slide-show models that I've seen that are freely
available are just for slide shows ... a flat, non-hierarchical collection
of pages. Even though those are XML I cannot use them to organize my
material in the nature of the way I teach ... which is why all along I
stick to my internal document model. Just writing the content in XML
doesn't address my "cognitive style" of working with training information
... only using my private document model addresses my style of thinking of
training.
Which isn't to say that is the way I think *all* people should deliver
training material ... I've just tuned my stuff to work with the way I do it.
At 2003-12-15 09:46 -0500, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>at a conference where they strongly prefer that we write our presentations
>in XML.
Note that at XML'2003 I was only asked to submit my paper in XML, I wasn't
asked to submit my presentation slides in XML. They've mandated a document
model related to the semantics of writing a paper, and I was able to fit
that just fine as all I was doing when writing a paper was writing a
paper. The associated slides that I projected were authored separately,
and that is fine with me as the organization of my projection is
necessarily different than the organization of my paper. My audiences
wouldn't accept me projecting my paper (full of paragraphs) but do accept
me projecting my bulleted layout and repackaging of the information.
I hope this helps.
...................... Ken
--
North America (Washington, DC): 3-day XSLT/2-day XSL-FO 2004-02-09
Instructor-led on-site corporate, government & user group training
for XSLT and XSL-FO world-wide: please contact us for the details
G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
ISBN 0-13-065196-6 Definitive XSLT and XPath
ISBN 0-13-140374-5 Definitive XSL-FO
ISBN 1-894049-08-X Practical Transformation Using XSLT and XPath
ISBN 1-894049-11-X Practical Formatting Using XSL-FO
Member of the XML Guild of Practitioners: http://XMLGuild.info
Male Breast Cancer Awareness http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/bc
|
