comments page

(it may be necessary to reload this page to see the latest comments)

From Liza Loop on Sat Sep 16 21:22:26 PDT 1995 :
Fred, I applaud this attempt but it isn't well enough implimented
to be advertised as a simulcast. We need to be careful not
to get the public's expectations high and then disappoint
it (them). I'll add to my comments as soon as I have time.

From joe on Wed Sep 20 11:34:52 PDT 1995 :
Fred,
Thanks for providing us with a contemporaneous WEB presence of our live telecast.
I believe it enriched the viewer's experience by providing the added dimension of writing to the conversation space.

Later when I viewed it from home, I found that it enchanced my recall and allowed me to see the flow of the conversation in a much better way.

Keep up your good work, and thanks again for providing us with this valuable service.

From Liza Loop on Wed, 20 Sep 1995 12:41:23:

You wrote:

>Liza --
>
> Fred, I applaud this attempt

More applause.

>tnx ...
>
> but it isn't well enough implimented
> to be advertised as a simulcast. We need to be careful not
> to get the public's expectations high and then disappoint
> it (them). I'll add to my comments as soon as I have time.
>
>Well, obviously your expectations were not met;

Actually, my expectations were met. This one was similar to but better than the Cable CO-OP Debate. It's my dreams that were not fulfilled. They are much more demanding than my expectations.

> I'm sorry you were disappointed.

Not disappointed. Just not sated. The better you get, the higher I will raise my hopes. I'd go crazy if I confused the two.

> As for fixing the problems -- when I
>hear in more detail just what your expectations were, then
>perhaps I can use them as a guide for re-implementation.

Some technical problems:

1. MPAC wasn't confident of their connection to your Web page. That got communicated through Kathryn to the viewing audience.

2. Very little of the transcript was actually captured. To really do that you probably need one typist for every two program guests. Like simultaneous interpretation of foreign languages or court recording, this is difficult and expensive. But I do think this is what we need if we are going to call it "simulcasting".

3. An alternative to "simulcasting" is to have someone transcribe a tape recording of the show immediately after broadcast. Again. Expensive.

4. A third approach would be to have each of the participants log on before and after the show to add their own statements on the topics which were discussed on the air. I know you tried the before part. I, like others, didn't have time to respond adequately. I'm also not sure what information you would like to have. I'd be happy to have a whole LO*OP Center Web page(s). Again, time to put up something worth other's investment in reading is at a premium.

5. Back to the show itself: The computer screens were not readable on home TV's. This means you couldn't get the http address off the screen. I'm sure we (MPAC) will get better at this with experience.

6. I've participated in several "fish bowl" conversations like this for MPAC and at conferences. I suggest that they need a) more preparation on the part of the host (maybe we can ask Johnny Carson to act as an advisor for us) and b) the guests need to spend about 1/2 hour on set, talking to each other before we go on the air.

This process has two advantages. A more experienced host will be able to silence the group when a good snippet of conversation comes along so the mikes can pick it up. This is much more interesting than the polite but boring one-by-one storying telling we did. Also, the speakers are much more animated. We began to see a little of this toward the end of the show. Of course. This would make transcription that much more difficult.

Hope these comments are useful. I'd like them posted if possible so that anyone can respond publically.

Again, Fred. Please hear my criticisms with many warm fuzzies attached. How many filiments did Edison try before the light bulb was finished being "invented"?

Liza

From Fred on Tue, 26 Sep 95 14:39:29 PDT:

Liza --

Actually, my expectations were met. This one was similar to but better than the Cable CO-OP Debate. It's my dreams that were not fulfilled. They are much more demanding than my expectations.

Oh that. Yeah, my dreams are similar, and were not met either. What I want a live Webcast to be, and what I can do at this stage, are very far apart. But gotta start somewhere.

Thanks for taking the time to clarifiy.

Some technical problems:

1. MPAC wasn't confident of their connection to your Web page. That got communicated through Kathryn to the viewing audience.

Yes. And I contributed by having an accessively long URL. However, when it worked, I thought it was very good. So few shows on the Internet actually feature live screen shots. Ole against his page was especially effective.

2. Very little of the transcript was actually captured. To really do that you probably need one typist for every two program guests. Like simultaneous interpretation of foreign languages or court recording, this is difficult and expensive. But I do think this is what we need if we are going to call it "simulcasting".

We may disagree here. I think a synoptic map has many advantages over a literal transcript. First of course it is shorter and can be more easily scanned. Also, the kind of simulcasts I do and aim at are a form of journalism; they give one view of an event, leaving some things out in the interests of both brevity and coherence. I'm trying to tell a story, like newspaper stories; not present an exhaustive list of everything that happens.

3. An alternative to "simulcasting" is to have someone transcribe a tape recording of the show immediately after broadcast. Again. Expensive.

Yup, could be done. And expensive to hire, or time consuming. In fact, I do go over the tapes to pick up some details and correct mistakes, but my focus is on the live performance, and so the intention is to just tweak the produced live text-graphics.

4. A third approach would be to have each of the participants log on before and after the show to add their own statements on the topics which were discussed on the air. I know you tried the before part. I, like others, didn't have time to respond adequately. I'm also not sure what information you would like to have. I'd be happy to have a whole LO*OP Center Web page(s). Again, time to put up something worth other's investment in reading is at a premium.

Agreed. Only Bob Moss responded to my request for material with his article on BPANET; as for the rest, I dug up what URLs I could, like PA, PA-COMNET, Plugged In, Ole, etc, and sprinkled them as appropriate into the event map. If you have a home page, you should tell me what the URL is. I can add it to the participants page. Remember, the show will be rebroadcast again on the 27th at 7:30.

5. Back to the show itself: The computer screens were not readable on home TV's. This means you couldn't get the http address off the screen. I'm sure we (MPAC) will get better at this with experience.

Yeah, it sure looked small; however it was readable on my set. And in the previous simulcast -- the May 21 candidate's forum -- they split the URL and it was much easier to read ... ummm, I think. You can judge for yourself at:

http://www.pgc.com/meetings

6. I've participated in several "fish bowl" conversations like this for MPAC and at conferences. I suggest that they need a) more preparation on the part of the host (maybe we can ask Johnny Carson to act as an advisor for us) and b) the guests need to spend about 1/2 hour on set, talking to each other before we go on the air.

Sounds like a good idea.

This process has two advantages. A more experienced host will be able to silence the group when a good snippet of conversation comes along so the mikes can pick it up. This is much more interesting than the polite but boring one-by-one storying telling we did. Also, the speakers are much more animated. We began to see a little of this toward the end of the show. Of course. This would make transcription that much more difficult.

It's OK -- that's the challenge I set myself when I decided to do performance graphics. The more lively the event, the better; more chance to stretch as a performer ... [urg].

Hope these comments are useful. I'd like them posted if possible so that anyone can respond publically.

Again, Fred. Please hear my criticisms with many warm fuzzies attached. How many filiments did Edison try before the light bulb was finished being "invented"?

Thanks for your support and taking the time for careful critique; I appreciate it.

regards,
-f

From on Thu Nov 22 17:23:48 GMT 2001 :


From on Mon Jul 8 11:17:40 GMT 2002 :


From on Mon Jul 8 11:17:44 GMT 2002 :


From on Wed Jan 28 13:15:51 GMT 2004 :


From on Sun Apr 25 14:55:40 GMT 2004 :


From on Wed Aug 18 20:25:02 GMT 2004 :


From on Tue Mar 8 12:19:21 GMT 2005 :


From on Sun Jun 12 09:32:31 GMT 2005 :


From on Tue Sep 6 21:41:22 GMT 2005 :


From on Mon Sep 12 12:57:00 GMT 2005 :