[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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@propylon.com]
[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.
|
