Originally published here.
I must say Graham R. Briggs’ videos are just the kind of stuff I long to find while browsing the net. I immediately subscribed to his production, hoping there’ll be more, as well as added him on Google+. As for the other papers, I read them and … forgot them just about as fast. All links are neatly bookmarked for me to retrieve them should I need to but I must admit I didn’t enjoy the whole exercice, having to be on my own, digest their content and not having anybody to discuss with about it all.
I felt frustrated enough I had to let it out one way or the other hence the Tweet I sent earlier as well as the post made on G+, on the Crit101 community recently created. I believe that since it exists, it might as well make itself useful.
Today is another day, There’s a fire in the fireplace and I have a cup of coffee standing next to this laptop. I had a reasonable night sleep and I’m seeing things not differently but better I think. I feel that the papers I read, although rather deeper than what Graham R. Briggs was speaking about, were missing important elemenst: the illustration and the possibility to interact. I can read, thank you very much, but what good is it to have all validy variations enumerated (external, concurrent, face, jury, …) without anybody having a scenario he or she would have lived to picture them?
I read somewhere that kids, whenever they need to know about something, tend to look it up on Youtube. They want more than just texts and images but a scenario, a context and someone taking them there and giving explanations. This is how I’m learning how to program for that matter, at least for introductions, so as to start on the right foot.
