4 ms·

I'd recommend going over the postscript http://perl.plover.com/yak/design/samples/note.html http://perl.plover.com/yak/design/samples/note.html and note that al

by zzzeek 15y ago

I'd recommend going over the postscript http://perl.plover.com/yak/design/samples/note.html http://perl.plover.com/yak/design/samples/note.html and note that all the discussion here has already happened years ago. IMHO if the majority of listeners misunderstand your talk and don't get the point you're trying to make, then you made a bad talk. Seems like his real point was to distinguish between the GOF book and the Alexander book were about. That's great. Present that point in a thoughtful and careful way, not by going off on GOF in a way that will turn off listeners/readers and occlude the more subtle point you're trying to make.

wnoise 15y ago
Not the majority of his listeners but some hard to measure fraction of those who read his slides online without the context of the talk that he gave. Yeah, it's definitely not a good set of slides unconnected to the talk. He even admits that.
jerf 15y ago
"IMHO if the majority of listeners misunderstand your talk and don't get the point you're trying to make, then you made a bad talk." Does not follow. It is also possible that he has made a hard point, which the brains of the readers have a hard time representing with their internal conceptualizations, therefore misunderstand, then act on those misunderstandings. I think the presentation is perfectly clear, and do not see any obvious way it can be made wildly easier to understand. Quality of communication is not just bounded by the quality of the sender, it is bounded by the quality of the recipient as well. The point this presentation is trying to make is intrinsically hobbled by the fact that many people cognitively will only perceive something that boils down to "PATTERNS GOOD" (hooray!) or "PATTERNS BAD" (boo! flames!), and "PATTERNS DOGMA A LOSSY TRANSLATION OF SUPERIOR ORIGINAL PATTERNS CONCEPT" doesn't into either of those buckets very well (the distinction between patterns dogma and patterns idea being a tricky one all by itself), and if that's how one approaches it, it's easy to see how it simply falls into the "bad" bucket.

by zzzeek 15y ago

wnoise 15y ago

Not the majority of his listeners but some hard to measure fraction of those who read his slides online without the context of the talk that he gave. Yeah, it's definitely not a good set of slides unconnected to the talk. He even admits that.

jerf 15y ago

"IMHO if the majority of listeners misunderstand your talk and don't get the point you're trying to make, then you made a bad talk." Does not follow. It is also possible that he has made a hard point, which the brains of the readers have a hard time representing with their internal conceptualizations, therefore misunderstand, then act on those misunderstandings. I think the presentation is perfectly clear, and do not see any obvious way it can be made wildly easier to understand. Quality of communication is not just bounded by the quality of the sender, it is bounded by the quality of the recipient as well. The point this presentation is trying to make is intrinsically hobbled by the fact that many people cognitively will only perceive something that boils down to "PATTERNS GOOD" (hooray!) or "PATTERNS BAD" (boo! flames!), and "PATTERNS DOGMA A LOSSY TRANSLATION OF SUPERIOR ORIGINAL PATTERNS CONCEPT" doesn't into either of those buckets very well (the distinction between patterns dogma and patterns idea being a tricky one all by itself), and if that's how one approaches it, it's easy to see how it simply falls into the "bad" bucket.