[2:07pm] dsabine: I think we're all waiting for Mr. Bogart to arrive -- (well, that's what I'm waiting for anyways)
[2:07pm] hklv: (I won't talk about my compiling problems during the meeting, i'll stay quiet)
[2:07pm] korayt: he might be here soon maybe
[2:07pm] dsabine: or Hans... perhaps Hans has a meeting agenda?
[2:07pm] _hc: hey korayt
[2:07pm] _|: hklv: i commited a fix for the SCons problem but it might take a day to show up if you are using pserver
[2:08pm] korayt: _hc, hello Hans
[2:08pm] _|: hklv: as it is if you use scons you will hve to manually install a half dozen libraries first, and if youre using make youll hve to download other non-"externals/" dirs from cvs
[2:08pm] _|: hklv: then hope youre on osux or 32bit linux..
[2:09pm] _hc: Ben's our dear leader...
[2:09pm] korayt: _hc, couple of weeks ago, you were asking the patches that I am suing with microcontroller arduino
[2:09pm] _hc: dsabine: I think we are planing on talking about the project ideas for the workshops: https://puredata.org/dev/pddp/WorkThroughProjectIdeas
[2:09pm] hklv: _|: required libs are installed. scons only compiles a few externals. I hope that with make i can build more. i use linux, not os(u)x.
[2:09pm] dto left the chat room. (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
[2:10pm] korayt: _hc, I put it on the site as my homework assignment
[2:10pm] _hc: hklv: make builds almost everything in CVS, except for some new additions (clr, frankenstein...)
[2:10pm] _|: hklv: yeah i get header definition conflicts between devel m_pd.h and what various externals expect 
[2:10pm] _hc: korayt: yeah, I saw it, looks good. I just posted mine about 30 minutes ago
[2:10pm] _|: hklv:  mostly theyre in miXed
[2:11pm] _hc: hklv: have you looked at the docs in https://puredata.org/dev/pddp/WorkThroughProjectIdeas
[2:11pm] korayt: _hc, now I will also put your patch that is for multisensors
[2:11pm] _hc: hklv: oops http://puredata.org/docs/developer/
[2:12pm] korayt: _hc, we used almost the same thing in homework assignment
[2:13pm] korayt: _hc, ultrasound sensors are cool:-)
[2:13pm] _hc: korayt: I actually haven't used the ultrasound ones, just the infrared ones, which are spotty
[2:13pm] _hc: korayt: but fun to play with
[2:14pm] korayt: _hc, cool, I get quite stable measurments
[2:14pm] _hc: korayt: with ultrasound or infrared?
[2:14pm] dsabine: so... Does anybody in this room have admin privelages at puredata.org/info?
[2:14pm] korayt: _hc,  ultrasound
[2:15pm] _hc: dsabine: I think its just IOhannes Zmoelnig, and he isn't here very often
[2:15pm] dsabine: It's been a very long time since I've logged in at that site...
[2:15pm] dsabine: Thanks Hans.  I'll try to contact him.
[2:15pm] _hc: dsabine: I think it will mail you your password, if you address is still the same
[2:16pm] _hc: dsabine: he does check pdmeister pretty regularly, so that's probably enough
[2:16pm] hklv: I used 2 ultrasound sensors 12 years ago (an evalution kit from Polaroid), and I interfaced it using a basic microcontroller. it's easy and fun to use. but it has a limited range and react slowly (because sound is actually slow...)
[2:18pm] korayt: that might be true, I didnt need that much speed in that patch, but infrared would be good to test
[2:18pm] bbogart joined the chat room.
[2:20pm] mamalala: korayt: the infrared sensors are cool .... they are available for different ranges, and they directly produce a voltage as output .... so no other parts are required ...
[2:20pm] bbogart: hey all
[2:20pm] korayt: mamalala, cooll
[2:20pm] dsabine: Hello Mr. Bogart.
[2:20pm] korayt: bbogart, hello
[2:20pm] bbogart: korayt, they also seem less jittery than the ultrasonic transudcers
[2:21pm] bbogart: David!! hey how are you!?
[2:21pm] mamalala: korayt: the sharp sensors with analogue output: http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T061/1677.pdf
[2:21pm] mamalala: hi bbogart
[2:21pm] _hc: hey bbogart
[2:21pm] dsabine: I'm doing well.  And you?
[2:21pm] bbogart: basedon the last meeting I was not sure how many people would make it to this one, I almost missed it!
[2:21pm] dsabine: I wrote you the other night by email.  Did you receive the message?
[2:22pm] bbogart: dsabine, too many things on my plate this month. I'm doing a presentation on art and open-source tomorrow night. Yes I did get your message sorry I have not had a chance to respond. Have you had a look at the wiki?
[2:22pm] _hc: mamalala: I've used those sharp sensors, they are ok when they work, but they are quite easy to fry, for me at least.  And I've fried very very few electronics in my life.
[2:22pm] bbogart: _hc, how you feeling? I was not thinking you would make it today.
[2:22pm] _hc: bbogart: it'll be small but good!
[2:23pm] dsabine: ben, yes, I've been to the Wiki.  I think it's best perhaps if I just lurk for a long while.
[2:23pm] bbogart: mamalala, hey
[2:23pm] _hc: bbogart: I am good, but harried.  but I managed to get my idea up  on the wiki, even though its similar to korayt's and doesn't include networking
[2:23pm] dsabine: I don't mean to interrupt the agenda...so my input, if any, will be limited.
[2:23pm] mamalala: _hc: yeah, true .... they really dont like it to feed +5volts into the analogue output ... or reverse the supply voltage ....
[2:24pm] bbogart: dsabine, do whatever you feel comfortable with. Please post your comments to the wiki though, that would be very helpful.
[2:25pm] dsabine: I will...but I've been unable to login to puredata.info and haven't heard  back from pdmeister@iem
[2:25pm] dsabine: It's been a long time and I don't remember my username at that site.
[2:25pm] bbogart: _hc, GREAT! I'll have to read up on that. Also I thought of a couple new ideas as well, networking is the harder part I've found... I have access to a range-finder and a 40" LCD so I'm hoping to actually install a few of these ideas for documentation.
[2:25pm] bbogart: dsabine, you should hear back soon,
[2:25pm] _hc: bbogart: nice...  do you sleep, btw?  
[2:26pm] bbogart: _hc, well actually It was last night while *trying* to fall asleep that a new idea come out. I had much better responce to "reflex" my first audio performance, than I thought and already have another oportunity to perform it, as well as the possibility of a magazine article.
[2:27pm] bbogart: _hc, ah, I don't have a job, but a series of part time things, which helps
[2:27pm] dsabine: So...what's on the agenda today then?
[2:28pm] _hc: korayt: it seems we have very different measures for difficulty, since our projects are similar, yet our difficulty ratings are quite different.  I am thinking that my project would build upon large building blocks to make it easy, a confidence builder
[2:28pm] korayt: _hc, now I notice that
[2:29pm] bbogart: dsabine, The first part would be a discussion on the "workThrough" projects has HC has started. We never got a good consenus about if the all-about templates were good either.
[2:29pm] korayt: _hc I was thinking the reduce my difficulty to 5 maybe, I guess difficult part is to construct the patch related to the assignment
[2:30pm] _hc: yeah, if its contructing synths, filters, etc. from scratch, that would make it difficult for a lot of people
[2:30pm] korayt: _hc, you are using a ready made patch then connect it to sensor
[2:30pm] bbogart: _hc, you are totally right that the difficulty this is really a problem, I think we would require some unification. Also some projects could use the same parts as others making it easier as well. Maybe we should just take the difficulty out totally for now...
[2:30pm] korayt: _hc, yes I put the difficulty range regarding to the construction
[2:31pm] korayt: bbogart, that might be a good idea
[2:31pm] dsabine: Perhaps I've missed some past discussions about 'difficulty'.  But has consenus been reached about the questions 'How difficult is 10/10?' and 'How simple is 1/10?'
[2:32pm] _hc: dsabine: this difficulty question is brand new, for me anyway, so jump right in.  It would be useful to have a vague measurement so that we can steer people in the right direction as they are learning.  The question is how to make the ranking
[2:32pm] bbogart: at least as koray and I started things could go something like this: (range-finder)(low-level) -> (mictrocontroller)(high-level) -> [read analog](microcontroller high-level) -> [osc~](low level)
[2:32pm] hklv: 1/10 for beginners up to 10/10 for experts?
[2:33pm] dsabine: And further questions... what does that 0-10 scale measure exactly?  (Logic? Math? The prerequisite understanding of calculus? the prerequisite knowledge of [pd]'s interface?, etc.?)
[2:33pm] bbogart: _hc, I think the difficulty is only meaningful to the end users, so I think we should leave them to evaluate that, in test sessions or what have you
[2:33pm] _hc: korayt: yes, I am actually working on a set of ready-made patches for sensor boards like the multio, arduino, etc. along the same lines as the [hid] toolkit.  The multio already uses HID, so that will be relatively easy.  For the arduino, my current plan is to make a Pd firmware with a matching Pd object.  That would make it easy to start working with the arduino and Pd as quick as possible.  Then later people can get into writing their own firmware if they want
[2:34pm] _hc: hklv: sounds about right
[2:34pm] bbogart: dsabine, indeed its totally problematic. It was meant to be a measure of how confused it would make the intro user.
[2:34pm] _hc: bbogart: so what would 10 mean in that case?
[2:35pm] _hc: bbogart: you are done with the workshops?
[2:35pm] korayt: _hc, do you mean you will make an object like hid for arduino?
[2:35pm] dsabine: and what is an 'intro user'?  Is that a person who is confronted with manipulating the patch?  Using the patch?  Or is that a person who builds the patch?
[2:35pm] bbogart: _hc, sounds very great, have you thought about my idea of having a unified approach so that we interact with all microcontrollers in a similar way? They all have analog and digital and in and out, so maybe that is the best place to start [analog] [digital] both with ins and outs.
[2:35pm] bbogart: _hc, done with the workshops?
[2:36pm] _hc: korayt: more like [mouse] for the arduino.  [mouse] is a Pd object that uses [hid].  [arduino] would be a Pd object that uses [serial] or [libusb]
[2:36pm] korayt: _hc, that would definitely make people life easy
[2:36pm] bbogart: dsabine, person who builds the patch, the target for a PDDP intro workshop. Though we would have different levels of workshops in the future, but I left it open for workthrough projects at all levels.
[2:37pm] _hc: bbogart: maybe that makes more sense, kind of a relative difficulty level, so in the context of the intro set of workshops, 10 would use every skill learned in that set of workshops, 1 would use only one skill
[2:37pm] korayt: _hc, maybe it can also use [comport] too
[2:38pm] _hc: korayt: actually, I am going to writing a [serial] object that has the exact same options and interface as the [hid] object, which will be based on [comport]
[2:38pm] _hc: korayt: and probably also [libusb] or maybe call it [usb], I haven't looked into that much yet
[2:39pm] bbogart: _hc, yeah something like that exactly. but I don't think we can solve the problem of rating difficulty at this point. I vote for removing those from the wiki, and putting more of an emphasis on the easier ones. Any project could be made easier with high-level bits, its just more work, and you have to keep in mind the low-level bits.
[2:39pm] korayt: _hc, that would be vey cool, I am going to start a course in 3 weeks, where I will go abit deeper with PD and arduino will part of it, so I am looking forward it
[2:40pm] bbogart: I'd like to know what you all think about the workThrough approach in general, do you think it'll work? Do we start with the project and decide what they need to learn based on that, or decide what they need to learn and then develop the project to follow?
[2:40pm] _hc: korayt: cool, I hope to have some basics ready by then, I'll at least have the paper writting, since its due on Jan 31st 
[2:40pm] dsabine: bbogart, Well, I'd suggest then that 1/10 should be the difficulty of building, say, the simplest possible type of patch.  Like connecting basic objects to produce and control a metronome.  [toggle] > [metro] > [bang] with basic options to control tempo etc.
[2:40pm] dsabine: And 10/10, in my mind, would imply a project which requires the construction and implementation of abstractions, externals, other libraries, I.O. devices, and requires advanced understanding of audio/digital conversion, higher math, etc.
[2:40pm] _hc: bbogart: I like the workThrough approach, I think it'll make the workshops much less dry
[2:40pm] korayt: _hc, actually the course will start on 31st of January too:-)
[2:41pm] korayt: _hc, are you writing paper for NIME? We have also a plan with David to write a paper for NIME, lets see how it will go:-)
[2:41pm] bbogart: _hc, Somehow it seems like it would be hard to develop knowledge without holes when using those projects, maybe that is no issue since they are actually doing what they want to, not just filling in holes.
[2:42pm] _hc: korayt: yup, its a NIME paper
[2:42pm] korayt: _hc, hope to see you in early summer in Paris then;-)
[2:42pm] bbogart: dsabine, hmmm, or the "WorkThrough" projects are finished creative ideas, not patches per-se. the ratings of difficulty are for those, not problems to solve in general. (but now that I think about it, I don't know if there would be other problems to solve that are not project based anyhow..)
[2:43pm] bbogart: dsabine, what kind of patch were you imaging your ratings be attached to?
[2:43pm] _hc: bbogart: well, maybe the project idea would be like a framework, you'd still teach thru a curriculum, covering a range of topics, but people would pick and choose which parts they'll use in their project
[2:44pm] dsabine: Well, I'm imagining that a workshop is like an applied tutorial.  "How to build an indoor Sunset (By Ben Bogart)"
[2:44pm] _hc: bbogart: so the project work would mostly be done in lab time, and the course would be more straightforward.
[2:44pm] _hc: bbogart: ah I see, I missed that.  That would be ideal, but might be hard to attain
[2:44pm] dsabine: And that tutorial would require pre-requisite knowledge on the part of the participant.  (How much pre-requisite knowledge?  Well... you've suggested 3/10)
[2:45pm] _hc: dsabine: right now we are talking about an intro workshop, so little or no Pd experience, but hopefully some computer and other related experience
[2:46pm] _hc: bbogart: I was thinking more like project ideas to interleave with a more standard "intro" workshop
[2:46pm] korayt: project would be done in the lab time, but i guess there is an individual tutoring is needed about the project during some part of the course
[2:46pm] dsabine: As I interpret "3 of 10"...I'd think to myself, "if I understand 30% of everything that BEN knows...I should be able to follow through the workshop with success."
[2:46pm] bbogart: dsabine, ok I get you. I was thinking more along the lines of: Intro to PD. By the end of this course you will know how to make a light-sensor attached to one machine play back the video on another machine." The workThrough is a concrete way to solve those problems. It is not the whole course though, kind of an example that they are invested in.
[2:48pm] bbogart: _hc, I think the students project would be seperate from the workThrough projects. After a few workThroughs then the student is left to work on their idea. I was thinking each of the steps in the "tutorial" would then be realted to the WorkThrough to keep everything concrete. I was thinking that there would be nothing in the workshop that did not relate to the workThrough for that tutorial.
[2:49pm] dsabine: _hc...Ok, if this is an 'intro' workshop, then I'd recommend that your project is at least a 12 out of 10.  And a workshop that is "2 of 10" would more likely be called "How to create and use abstraction".  At 2 of 10, the user is likely trying very hard to understand how CTRL-E works in [pd].  (Let alone ultrasonic rangefinders)
[2:50pm] _hc: dsabine: its a 2/10 for a 5-day workshop, hopefully they can figure out that much in 5 days
[2:50pm] dsabine: ben, "how to make a light-sensor attached to one machine play back the video on another machine"...okay, I get you.  But 3 of 10 only applies if there's an instructor (like yourself) who supplies ready-made abstractions and objects (which the student can then assemble)
[2:50pm] bbogart: dsabine, we also have been talking about a dual bottom-up and top-down approach, so that an included abstraction [video-scrub] is as easy to use as a slider...
[2:51pm] korayt: _hc, I would suggest between 2/10 and 4/10 for 5 days workshop, they do learn and implement alot of things in 5 days
[2:51pm] bbogart: dsabine, yes the workshops would include the ready made abstractions, which would be part of PDDP and included in distros.
[2:52pm] _hc: bbogart: all clear now.  that's a good idea.  So the workThru would be created step-by-step in the course time.  That would work quite nicely if we come up with good ideas.  The sunset idea is a good start
[2:52pm] dsabine: Ah, thanks ben.  That clears up a lot for me.  Hans, I'm nearly on the same page with you all.
[2:52pm] hklv: bbogart: i like your sunset idea too. can i try it in class?
[2:52pm] dsabine: (I'm not very good at *lurking* am I?  I'll try harder.)
[2:52pm] _hc: dsabine: yes, we are going to be relying on a lot of readymade objects.  Sometimes things will be quite high level, other times we will go down low
[2:52pm] hklv: (me neither)
[2:53pm] bbogart: _hc, yes exactly what I had in mind. *phew*
[2:53pm] bbogart: hklv, its GPL, help yourself. 
[2:54pm] _hc: hklv: be sure to contribute back bug reports and improvements!  :0
[2:54pm] hklv: bbogart: it's already made? where is it?
[2:54pm] bbogart: dsabine, haha! I think its good you ask us questions since it helps us argue with ourselves about what we were thinking.
[2:54pm] _hc: oops :0 = 
[2:54pm] bbogart: hklv, I have not done it no, just an idea at this stage, please feel free to impliment it, I hope with a muliIO since I have one. 
[2:55pm] bbogart: _hc, I guess my description of the workThrough is not specific enough, what made it click in your head what I actually meant?
[2:55pm] hklv: bbogart: i think a light sensor can be interfaced with a simple PIC.
[2:56pm] bbogart: hklv, indeed it can, but remember we're aiming for high-level blocks here. 
[2:57pm] hklv: bbogart: there's simples and powerful ideas at both high and low levels.
[2:58pm] _hc: bbogart: each response you description another part of the picture
[2:58pm] _hc: bbogart:  then I finally got
[2:58pm] _hc: it
[2:59pm] hklv: bbogart: I mean it's nice to implement ideas using very low tech interfaced with very high tech.
[2:59pm] bbogart: _hc, hmm, I'm not sure how to state it clearly for the wiki so we all get it.
[3:00pm] _hc: bbogart: I see, I'll pick out some key bits...
[3:00pm] bbogart: hklv, that is true for sure, but I would say at this intro level just connecting the LDR to the multiIO would be low-level enough.
[3:00pm] bbogart: damn I forgot to start taking notes
[3:03pm] _hc: bbogart:    " everything in the workshop relates to the workThrough project for that set of workshops."
[3:03pm] korayt: btw kunstradio is streaming their Art's Birthday ceöebration
[3:03pm] korayt:        http://stream.sil.at:7562/listen.pls    
[3:03pm] bbogart: _hc, prefect, Ok I'll change that part of the wiki with a better description
[3:03pm] dsabine: ben, well...know that I know that you'd intend to provide ready-made abstractions to do all the complicated grunt-work...I can see now how you'd rate your project as a 3/10.  (That's what made it click)
[3:04pm] _hc: bbogart: " the workThru project is created step-by-step during the course time, with the instructor leading the students thru it"
[3:04pm] bbogart: dsabine, woo hoo! There would be low-level bits too, but they would be very simlple. The idea is that the complexity of the low-level bits gets more and more complex through the workshops (to get around the limits of the abstractions) until the point when the students are making thier own abstractions.
[3:05pm] korayt: _hc, I like the idea of workThru project hands on session during the course, implementing projects together with the stdents
[3:05pm] bbogart: korayt, exactly, I think students would really love it, it would feel like a master-class for intro students.
[3:05pm] bbogart: master-class meaning a lot gets done and something takes shape
[3:06pm] korayt: bbogart, I do this in all the workshops, and I can say that it works
[3:06pm] korayt: bbogart_ with these workThru projects, it will be more fun for them
[3:07pm] minDstupi joined the chat room.
[3:07pm] minDstupi: heya guys
[3:08pm] dsabine: More thoughts about the difficulty rating.  It actually doesn't rate how difficult it is (or would be) to create the patch in [pd].  It rates instead how simple the instructor intends to make the project.
[3:08pm] dsabine: for example: my dad can't set the time on his VCR, but he can locate meteor craters in Google Earth.
[3:08pm] dsabine: To him...Google earth (a very complicated software) is relatively easy to use compared to the back-ass-ward-ness of the mind-bogglingly-difficult interface on the VCR.
[3:08pm] bbogart: korayt,  
[3:09pm] bbogart: dsabine, that is true, related to what level the project is aimed at.
[3:09pm] dsabine: Thanks, Ben.  It's all clear now.
[3:10pm] bbogart: Should there be one workThrough per tutorial? per day? per week? How much material (in workshop) will each workThrough facilitate?
[3:10pm] korayt: depends on the difficulty level I guess there can be 2 perday
[3:11pm] korayt: I mean depends on the tutorial session, it can be 1 or 2 per tutorial
[3:11pm] bbogart: korayt, could be hard to think up that many projects...
[3:11pm] _hc: I think one workThru for the whole time would not work so well, since there wouldn't be much of the joy of completeion
[3:11pm] bbogart: _hc, great point.
[3:12pm] bbogart: I think sunrise would be hard to do in one day though... maybe two days, the HW part and the SW part?
[3:12pm] _hc: but bigger projects would be nice too since students would feel like they'd accomplished something
[3:12pm] _hc: two days sounds workable
[3:13pm] hklv: dsabine: bbogart: is the sunrise idea like seeking is a sunrise movie?
[3:13pm] hklv: (oups, that was for bbogart)
[3:13pm] korayt: bbogart, if they will complete something in one day, that would work, if they will leave for the next day, it might loose its excitement
[3:14pm] astecp joined the chat room.
[3:14pm] korayt: bbogart, and when they go home, they can experiment with the completed one.
[3:16pm] _hc: I think that if you get one chunk of the sunrise working on day one, like the video playback, then it could build expectation for doing the rest on day two, as long as something is working at the end of day one.
[3:16pm] wip left the chat room. (" HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- Go on, try it!")
[3:17pm] bbogart: hklv, yep, seeking the movie.
[3:18pm] bbogart: korayt, hmmm your right I think maybe sunrise would be good for one day. I think the HW hookup could be harder than the video stuff, which would take much less than a single day.
[3:18pm] hklv: bbogart: then one day to learn how to seek a movie and use a sensor as a slider should be enough.
[3:18pm] bbogart: hklv, too much I'm thinking.. unless its the first day and they need to know editmode and all the simple stuff.
[3:19pm] hklv: bbogart: oh! i agree.
[3:19pm] bbogart: sunrise would work for two days if its the first day. Day 1 would cover PD and the abstraction, then day two would cover the wires, some electronics and hooking up the muliIO. Then the end of that day they stick em together.
[3:20pm] hklv: bbogart: sounds good to me.
[3:20pm] bbogart: korayt, your right about the satisfaction issue, so what if on day one they can scrub a video in PD (thats half-done) and then the next day the whole thing is complete.
[3:21pm] mamalala: bbogart: if you refer to a specific hardware to use for sensors, you should tell the people that the 0..+5 volt range is industry standard, so that the
[3:21pm] bbogart: Should workThough projects be measured in workshop days? simple projects could be one day, complex ones could be 3-4 days? no more than 4 days, with one day per module (image/sound/phys/network)
[3:21pm] korayt: bbogart, yes, then they can play around with video at the end of the day
[3:21pm] mamalala: stuff they learn also applies to other such boxes as well .... (normally)
[3:21pm] bbogart: mamalala, for sure
[3:22pm] bbogart: Actually could you electronics people add some workshop links to PDDP for intro electronics, very simple stuff, +, -, volts, analog and digital... just enough to know how to use a multio for something simple.
[3:23pm] hklv: bbogart: good idea. i intend to use only the parallel port and the simplest PIC for my class.
[3:23pm] hklv: bbogart: there's not much to know about electronics to create simple hw interfaces.
[3:24pm] bbogart: hklv, for sure, but a little intro on how to make an LED light up and so on would be a great start.
[3:24pm] mamalala:        http://itp.nyu.edu/~dbo3/physical/physical.html    
[3:25pm] korayt: I need to leave now, I will catch you later with the log and i guess next week here abit after 21:00 pm gmt+2
[3:25pm] bbogart: mamalala, (can you post it to the wiki pleez?)
[3:25pm] bbogart: korayt, hang on
[3:25pm] hklv: bbogart: absolutely.
[3:25pm] korayt: goodbye everybody, see you next week!!
[3:25pm] mamalala: bbogart: um, another account i have to create ....
[3:26pm] hklv: mamalala: how's the book? i was going to order it anyway.
[3:26pm] bbogart: should we slow down the meeting schedule? maybe once each two weeks?
[3:26pm] bbogart: is this weekly thing too much for anyone?
[3:26pm] bbogart: mamalala, ok, could you email it to me?
[3:26pm] korayt: bbogart, it might work too
[3:26pm] _hc: see ya korayt
[3:26pm] korayt: once in 2 weeks
[3:26pm] mamalala: hklv: i know the online stuff only, and only read a little bit into it ... looks good so far ... quite a nice introduction in all the stuff involved ...
[3:27pm] mamalala: bbogart: alright ....
[3:27pm] bbogart: Things seems to be getting more quiet as time goes on, what do the others think?
[3:27pm] bbogart: mamalala, Thank you.
[3:27pm] korayt: once in 2 weeks fine with me
[3:27pm] _hc: mamalala: my girlfirend just bought it, so I am going to check it out
[3:27pm] _hc: I had one last thought before everyone goes:
[3:28pm] bbogart: _hc, yeah?
[3:28pm] korayt: bbogart, lets discuss it on the list,
[3:28pm] bbogart: ok, I'll send en email before next week.
[3:28pm] korayt: bye everybody, really leaving now:-)
[3:28pm] korayt: see you all
[3:28pm] bbogart: by korayt
[3:28pm] _hc: originally we had talked a lot about making the workshops modular.  That seems hard to do with the workThru structure, but I still think modular workshops would be very usseful
[3:28pm] korayt left the chat room. ("Leaving")
[3:28pm] _hc: bye ko
[3:29pm] _hc: so maybe we could solve that by making the modules smaller, i.e. specific concepts or exercises
[3:30pm] bbogart: _hc, kind of like all-about patches? you mean instead of the image/sound/net/phys stuff?
[3:31pm] _hc: kind of, I suppose, but more like designed to fit together in some kind of teaching narrative
[3:32pm] bbogart: hmmm, what I liked about the modules is that they are so concrete, so much more so than say looping structures...
[3:32pm] bbogart: what if each of those modules had submodules?
[3:32pm] bbogart: I like the idea that the control stuff (glue) is taught through the use of the "material" of the patch, the image the sound, the network or the sensor.
[3:33pm] _hc: how do you see the modules fitting in with the workThru project then?
[3:34pm] bbogart: the modules would be components in the workThrough (why I thought we should try and think of projects that use all 4 modules) or two projects each using two of the modules.
[3:36pm] _hc: ok, so for the sunset, what were you thinking of for sound?
[3:36pm] _hc: the problem I see here is that the workThru will only cover some specifics about a given topic, so therefore that module wouldn't cover very much
[3:37pm] _hc: so if the Sound day of the intro set was based on the Sunset project, it would probably just cover controlling samples.  and that's not really a general purpose intro to sound with Pd
[3:37pm] _hc: or the video aspect would just cover video, without touching on 3D.
[3:38pm] _hc: so I guess then we could make a video day, a 3D day, a sampling day, a synth day, a filtering day
[3:38pm] _hc: but then its hard to combine into more of an overview, or general interest (but that might not really be an issue)
[3:39pm] bbogart: _hc, crikets vs birds. 
[3:40pm] astecp: is there such a thing as an overview? pd is pd, but in any particular instance you want to use it to do a particular thing with a particular combination of media
[3:40pm] bbogart: I think that shows sunset to be very simple. For more complex ideas, like filters, then we have a different workThrough project. So maybe we do go through many projects.) I'm working on something using a "whisper".
[3:42pm] bbogart: astecp, that is true, an overview depends on what you want to ignore about PD...
[3:42pm] wip joined the chat room.
[3:42pm] _hc: its a question of what people want when they take a workshop, I suppose
[3:43pm] _hc: people have told me that they are looking for something of an overview, so they can compare Pd to other software and evaluate which suits them best
[3:43pm] astecp: I like the idea of say, initial workshops with sampling and analysis .. then building on the same concepts in synth, video, 3d ...
[3:43pm] _hc: perhaps the overview is best done on its own, like how I've done it
[3:43pm] _hc: then for learning the specific skills, the workThru will work better
[3:43pm] • astecp wonders what pd could be compared to 
[3:44pm] _hc: astecp: processing, max/msp, supercollider, flash, director
[3:44pm] bbogart: _hc, don't forget the "overview" is more or less the "primer" we already talked about.
[3:44pm] astecp: that's probably a good idea .. overview as in "pd from 1,000 feet"
[3:45pm] bbogart: ok, my back is killing me and I still need to finish my FLOSS presentation for tomorrow night so I must be off.
[3:45pm] _hc: ok, we'll leave it at that for now
[3:45pm] bbogart: I'll post the changed workThrough description and my notes when I have time.
[3:45pm] _hc: small group, but a good discussion I think
[3:45pm] _hc: Ok, I'll do the transcript, and try to think of other ideas
[3:45pm] bbogart: Thanks for coming HC! I know your feeling pretty burried.
[3:46pm] _hc: sure, I actually enjoy this, but I do have to find an apt 
[3:46pm] bbogart: great! I think it'll just be good for us to keep the creative minds doing. 
[3:46pm] • astecp finds this interesting as I'd like to do a presentation of pd for the computer music seminars this year
[3:46pm] bbogart: _hc, I wish you luck.
[3:46pm] _hc: thanks
[3:46pm] bbogart: ok, see you next week or the week after, we'll see.
[3:46pm] bbogart: seeya all!
[3:46pm] dsabine: bye ben
[3:46pm] astecp: you're discussing on pd-list?
[3:46pm] Blackhold joined the chat room.
[3:46pm] bbogart: bye
[3:46pm] hklv: au-revoir
[3:46pm] _hc: bye
[3:46pm] bbogart left the chat room. ("Leaving")