Came in late tonight and saw a magnificent production about which I have
no time to write. In a few odd moments, I decided to check email and see
what was up. There I found Aaron's and Monika's postings to which I would
like to respond before the long drive home and sleep at last.
If I were more sure about the source of Aaron's anger, perhaps I could
address it directly. What is there to be angry about? An idea is an
idea, no aspersions were cast by either Jim or myself as far as I can
tell. I assure you all that at least on my part, none were intended and
I'm pretty sure the same is true for Jim.
Aaron wrote:
Jim, I think you just simply show to all again
that VISONS are fun to have but that you have no
idea on what it takes to realize such "visions"
Aaron, visions are what art is made of. Vision is what got oudeis
started. And vision is the first step in any project. Visions are fun to
have and Jim is the first one to volunteer labor to accomplish them. And
I can assure you that in fact he has quite a good idea about what it takes
to realize the vision he chose to share. If you were not so angry,
perhaps you might engage in considering Jim's vision or even one part of
it?
I wrote
Keep it up.
and you replied:
I guess then I will have to unsubscribe from the
idea-list
That is your choice, but perhaps you would like to reconsider it. One
idea that you don't agree with shouldn't stand in the way of your own
vision. And it is always possible that the two visions aren't as far
apart as you think they are. Or maybe, they are far apart but in bringing
them together something fantastic could happen. Isn't this the nature of
collaboration? Is there something in the MOO part of this venture that
makes you want to reject visions brought to bear by Jim and myself? We
have waited, with no small amount of patience, for a chance to have the
team explore a part of the project that seems (to more than just us) to be
right in line with the original vision of oudeis.
To jump forward in the posting, Aaron says:
Oudeis, in my opinion, ought to have one subgoal at the moment: how to
achieve a status where our project
becomes something professional which is to be
respected. So we have to work professionally.
One subgoal of oudeis must be to develop the MOO aspect.
Monika wrote:
On the other hand I can see that our concept of the webstage & MOO is far
more developed than the RL concept.
I don't see it that way. I feel that the MOO part has had little or no
attention from the team, which is not a criticism, just an observation.
Freiburg presents an opportunity to do this. I will address this issue at
greater length later in this posting. However, working on one thing at a
time is a time-tested way of going about things.
Monika wrote:
Let me put it like this: I am not very happy about a MOO *only*
performance. I feel that this would split the parts that we are trying to
bring together even more. oudeis tries to combine RL performer with
virtual performer.
Splitting the parts is exactly what Jim and I are thinking about. To
split it into doable parts. To get the whole team to focus on one aspect
and then put it together with a pretty well developed sense of the
physical performance as illustrated last month. The virtual performer has
two incarnations in oudeis, one on disparately located physical stages and
another in the MOO. In the MOO there are two kinds of virtual performers,
those performing oudeis roles and those loggin in to participate in the
performance. Thus, focussing on MOO allows us to explore what this
can/does mean.
Perhaps this might be the time to focus on exploring, developing, creating
the MOO aspect of oudeis. This is not unprofessional, unless it is MOO
altogether that Aaron objects to, in which case let's take the
professional out of it and tell it like it is.
I believe in the oudeis project! But the oudeis that I believe in has a
central part of it devoted to MOO. Perhaps this is the time for another
show of hands.do WE want MOO in or out? If it's out, that is fine with
me. But I sure would appreciate knowing where that issue stands so I
don't spend time that could be devoted to other projects trying to
incorporate athemoo where it is not wanted. I am NOT angry, quite the
contrary. I am exhilerated. I am so interested in this debate that the
night is ticking away and I can't leave the office!
I will ignore Aaron's sarcasm in the following and respond to the ideas:
Now m'dear,
a) The Freiburg conf. seems not to be focusing on theater and nothing with
the general idea of Oudeis (as far as my limited knowledge about it alows
to judge)
Theatre, in my opinion, is a medium for the communication of ideas.
Oudeis, in my opinion, is a project full of ideas, ideas that are
transmitted by the very technology that the Freiburg conference wishes to
examine. Theatre, in my opinion, communicates ideas as a means to educate
as well as entertain. This, too, is a common goal with the Freiburg
group.
Aaron continues:
It is a conference about HCI (human computer interaction) which
is a very broad general term for everything.
These comments Aaron makes are important, so I went back to the web pages
with the conference call. Among other things, they mention this:
These annual conferences serve as multi-disciplinary forums for the
discussion and dissemination of information on the research, development,
and applications on all topics related to multimedia/hypermedia and
distance education.
Human conputer interaction is only one of the topics listed on the web
page. And, the MOO part of oudeis is in fact, human computer HUMAN
interactionor, it could be that if we spent more time on it!
Aaron asks:
What does it have to do *specifically* with Oudeis except that Oudeis uses
this technology in order to realize its own idea: a world wide
performance?
Oudeis is an application of multimedia, so that is one connection. With
its MOO component, oudeis provides a form of distance education, or it
could. With each of its components (physical stages, music, the cones,
biofeedback, MOO, web), it represents research in the field of multimedia.
Aaron again:
I just don't see the connection.
I DO see the connection, a strong and important one. Why leave education
out of it? And why not force the conversation there to the possibilities
that human computer human interaction open? What might educators learn
from using one or all of our innovations?
And speaking of human computer human interaction, this is where the MOO
part comes back in. This is why I suggested that we focus on that aspect,
get it right, think about and develop its part of the whole and use this
experience to enrich the wholeso that the next time we can put it all
together we have two strong parts and not just one.
Monika wrote:
Can this performance/demonstration be a MOO only demonstration? How can we
set this up that people will be attracted? Who are the audience members?
Are those people sitting in front of a computer all
their workday long? Will they have to sit in front of our computer/screen
all performance long?
This is a good point, one we might discuss further. I think there is a
way to make it work, for them and for us. I've been thinking for the last
few days that what we need is to set up a meeting to talk about it in
synchronous time. I know that is a pain, but this juncture sort of
demands it.
Aaron continues:
you have no clue what you want at Freiburg
I think it is you who have no clue about what might be possible in
Freiburg. I think Jim and I, at the very least, have many clues. I think
Santiago had some sense of it as well. And Monika for that matter. So,
many of us have ideas and now is the time to choose one and go forward
with it!
Aarong again:
c) therefore it follows you have no idea on where "we" (whatever
that is) need to go.
I disagree quite strongly. I have very clear ideas about where oudeis
might go at this juncture. I think we should focus on the MOO/web.
Monika has different ideas tho I think a similar interest in developing
the athemoo part. But there is no point in going any further unless the
team wants to do it. Unless the team is willing to move forward together.
Our WE is a disparate one, that's the good news.with our combined
strengths and creativity we can go far IF we combine them. Thus far, the
We seems to be a large group of people who share an interest in the
project.
I wrote:
> Oudeis MUST be represented!
>
Why? WHY?? Well, for one reason, WHY NOT? If Freiburg provides an
opportunity to push one edge of the envelope, then it is beneficial to the
whole. For another reason, it could attract funding! For another other
reason, it provides us with a deadline and a specific goal. For one last
other reason, it offers communication with a whole new group of people for
whom multimedia is not a dream.
As their web page points out in its discussion of what a demonstration
session is all about:
Demonstration/Poster sessions enable researchers and non-commercial
developers to demonstrate and discuss their latest results and
developments in progress in order to gain feedback and to establish
contact with similar projects.
If oudeis is the professional team that Aaron envisions, then we want to
garner the attention of other professionals, engage in dialogue with them.
Aaron spoke of his concern about the appearance of conrete concepts. I
share this concern. There are aspects of oudeis that are vastly
underdeveloped. There are conceptual issues with the same problem.
We can't solve it all at once. We have to solve it one piece at a time.
As we go, we'll find discrepancies and solve them. Let's pick one piece,
and my posting and Jim's proposed picking the MOO piece. Let's get
concrete about that. Or drop it.
Aaron wrote:
A coming together as Monika put it is nice of course
but setting something up which will work and which
will have to work is something completely different.
And it is way out when nobody really knows what should be set up.
It is only way out until we choose whether we want to do Freiburg and then
what it is we want to do there. It seems Aaron's vote is not to do it.
Then again, when I wrote:
I think your idea about miracles of low bandwidth (can't remember exactly
now) is exceptional, perfect, just what this crowd will get excited about.
We focus on MOO, on it's ability as a distributed learning environment
And Aaron replied:
That sounds more reasonable.
It makes me think perhaps we have more agreement than it seemed when I
first read his posting. I then count Aaron, Monika, Jim, Santiago, and
I. Despite our differences, we seem to want to do something there, but a
decision hasn't been made. This is always a problem with collective work.
Who makes the decision? Will the group disband if the decision doesn't
please some members? Are we truly a collective or is someone among us the
final decision-maker? Is there a hierarchy that I wasn't aware of?
Hierarchies aren't always bad things so that comment was not a criticism,
simply an honest question.
When Aaron signs off with:
cu,
Leon Aaron Kaplan,
aka "mr. TCP/IP"
that makes me want to all be in the same room and hash through this until
it's settled. So far, the only same room I can think of is athemoo..so
let's have a meeting. Time is horrible, as are time zone differences, but
if there is a we who believes in this, then that will have to be a
headache for some if not most to just live with. Either we need to get
together in the same room, or we need a vote.
For the record, my vote is to go forward. But I can't go there alone. I
look through that list of potential topics of interest on the web page and
find several that I think apply to oudeis:
Cooperative/Collaborative Learning
Human-Computer Interface (HCI) Issues
Interactive Learning Environments
Multimedia/Hypermedia Applications
Online and Networked Education
Virtual Reality
We might propose a panel on process, educational potential, human computer
human interaction potential, followed by a demonstration (moo/web):
Panels (1 hour)
A panel offers an opportunity for 3-5 people (including the chair) to
present their views or results on a common theme, issue, or question.
Panels should cover timely topics related to the conference areas of
interest. Panel selection will be based on the importance, originality,
focus and timeliness of the topic; expertise of proposed panelists; as
well as the potential for informative (and even controversial) discussion.
A panel summary and position statements will be included in the
proceedings. Panels must allot at least 50% of the time for interaction
and discussion with the audience.
Demonstrations/Posters (2 hours)
Demonstration/Poster sessions enable researchers and non-commercial
developers to demonstrate and discuss their latest results and
developments in progress in order to gain feedback and to establish
contact with similar projects.
The demonstration could include the moo/web part of the performance. I do
not know if computer labs are available. Or whether we can get at least
one computer with a projection device and could then hold a performance of
that aspect of oudeis with the spectators online representing those in the
audience who can't be hooked up. The discussion to follow could explore
many different issues.
Here might be the rub:
Demonstration/Poster presenters will be required to arrange for their own
systems software and hardware. The Conference will provide a table, poster
board and electricity for each presenter.
This might be why we want to go for one computer, a projection device and
a screen. That wouldn't be as expensive as setting up like we did at the
event in September.
I am going to stop now, post this, and head home. We have some critical
decisions to make in the very near future.
1. Will MOO be part of oudeis as it grows and develops.
2. Will we propose something for Freiburg?
3. What will we focus on if we do decide to go for it?
4. Who will write up the proposal?
5. Will the proposal be for a panel, demonstration, or both?
6. Who will go?
7. How much would one computer, a projector, and a screen cost?
Goodnight all. Aaron, I'm sorry I made you mad!
Juli
===============================================================================
Juli Burk
University of Hawaii - Dept. of Theatre and Dance
1770 East West Rd.
Honolulu, HI 96822
phone: (808) 956-2600
fax: (808) 956-4234
internet: burk@hawaii.edu
web: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~burk
athemoo: moo.hawaii.edu 9999 or
http://moo.hawaii.edu/athemoo
===============================================================================