 |
Author |
Topic: the teacher's dilemma: p5 or director? (Read 7237 times) |
|
arielm
|
Re: the teacher's dilemma: p5 or director?
« Reply #30 on: Aug 26th, 2003, 12:00pm » |
|
re: free software
on Aug 26th, 2003, 10:40am, pollux wrote:| hehe, just tell that to your school board, they'll be more than happy to adopt it inmediately |
|
i wish it could be so easy! (it may be an argument for newly opened schools that didn't sign a big check to macromedia yet, but i doubt...)
|
Ariel Malka | www.chronotext.org
|
|
|
samuel_wan
|
Re: the teacher's dilemma: p5 or director?
« Reply #31 on: Sep 30th, 2003, 8:51pm » |
|
Have been thinking about this stuff for a long time, came across this thread. Bit of a background before continuing: No formal CS background at all, a smidgen of engineering math (statics, etc), two vague Java courses during grad school, and yet spent years plowing through one bad metaphor after another (unaware at the time) to become a Flash expert, with some lessons learned.
MOTIVATIONS AND EXPECTATIONS:
Not all motivations to learn interactive design can be addressed in a course, so setting proper expectations can help students avoid disappointment and prepare for further studies, either independently or in school. For an interactive project to look good, students can take graphic design 101. To sound good, learn composition and audio editing from the music dept. To have meaning, learn narrative and motion graphics in photography or cinematography course. To be interactive, learn programming. To be useful and usable, take up usability and hci. My point: in order not to disappoint students, it helps to set realistic goals and lay out those goals within the context of a long path towards competency.
BITTER PILL WITH LONGTERM PAYOFFS:
If the path is laid out and context is explained, students might be more willing to invest time into learning proper fundamentals. Good fundamentals would lead to transferrable knowledge, a point easily emphasized by demonstrating a concept in Processing, and then showing its equivalent in other products. Starting a student out in Flash or Director can mislead a student into mistaking idiosyncrasies for standards. Starting out with basic concepts in Processing can open the door to many resources that aren't far removed from Java-like languages, but very alien compared to Flash. A Processing-related course would benefit from some historical perspective on the early Demo scene, primitive arcade games, etc. Porting some of these old techniques to Processing would drive home the point that interactive graphics didn't originate with Flash/Director, and will continue evolving long after today's tools. Man, I wish someone had told me all this years ago.
CAREERS:
Nothing against Director, but I think it's pretty hard for a graduate to get by on Director gigs these days. Studios expect some Flash and Actionscript in the portfolio, and knowledge of workarounds is a further sign of having paid your dues. However, demonstrating knowledge of java (and processing) is definitely not going to hurt a porfolio. Real programming is unique, powerful, and uncommon among designers. A creative bitmap filter screams "different, energetic, innovative!" as long as there are other industry-standard skills to back up that low-level stuff.
KEEPING THINGS RELEVANT:
Demonstrate a low-level technique, such as defining a vector shape and then scaling it. Then, explain how the equivalent process is automated in Flash. Thus, the student is exposed to the underlying technology and can move on to Flash without leaping into ignorance of its flaws and virtues. Go back and forth between Flash and Processing to point out the underlying concepts without losing any commercial value.
Wish I had something like Processor to play with when I was a [edit: younger] kid!
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 30th, 2003, 8:54pm by samuel_wan » |
|
|
|
|
|
