Category: General

I was a big HyperCard fan and had a great time using the capabilities of that application to create interesting projects. I was interested in creating virtual learning environments and came up with a concept I called Grandma’s Attic. The idea was that an attic contained all kinds of content that might be regarded as historical artifacts. One could create a virtual attic and have learners explore this attic to collect information to respond to specific requests.

HyperCard offered some capabilities I cannot find in the multimedia tools now available. It had a scripting language and it made use of an object-oriented approach with some interesting capabilities. You could stack objects on top of each other and on top of a card. An object you clicked on would respond to the click if a handler existed or the click would fall through to the next layer (background, card, stack, HyperCard). So, for example, a click on an object on a card might trigger movement to a different card showing that object in a different state (say a closed book to an open book revealing text).

I was reminded of this capability and wanted to see how closely I could mimic some of these capabilities in Google Slides. If so, there would seem to be interesting capabilities for the creation of something like the virtual environments I created in HyperCard.

I actually found a screen capture of one of the displays from the HyperCard activity I created many years ago. One of the objects in one of the attics was a trunk containing stuff – a diary, bundle of letters, photo album, etc. It was easy to bring this image into Google Slides and then use a text box to offer some context about the image.

Slides has the capability of attaching links to objects. I used the square object from Objects and covered the diary.

Objects can be filled with various colors. Grey seems to be the default. I wanted the square object to be invisible and found you can set the fill to transparent. A thin line does mark the location of the “invisible button”, but this seemed fine.

This is the tricky part because it is not obvious from the menu bars that this capability exists. If you right-click (control-click) on an object, this list of options appears. You can use the “Link” option to create an action when the shape is clicked. In this case, I wanted to sent the user to a different slide. Note that the idea would be to have multiple objects used as hotspots to send users to different slides.

So, imagine clicking on the diary and you end up viewing a diary page (just a text field on another slide).

You do need to understand some other features of Slides to approximate what I used to do with HyperCard. First, images, shapes, text boxes appear on slides in layers. You might not notice this unless one object overlaps another. Obviously, you need the invisible button on top of the image of the diary/trunk. Use the “Order” option available in the same menu used to connect a link to an object to manipulate the order in which different objects are layered on the slide.

When you force a tool to do things the designers of that tool did not anticipate, you often have to use creative hacks to get what you want done. Here is an example. Slides is designed to advance slide to slide and not necessarily to jump around using linked buttons. You really want to disable the card to card progression if you can. In the example of the trunk, you don’t want mouse clicks on surfaces other than those covered by invisible buttons to move the experience to the next card. The next card would not necessarily make sense to the user. Here is a kludgy remedy. Start with an invisible button that covers the entire slide and link this button to the same slide. Instead of moving to the next card, clicking elsewhere on the slide will result in no change. The clicks trigges a link that takes the user to the same slide.

This is not a perfect solution as clicks on other objects that cover the all slide invisible button still move the experience to the next slide. This seems a problem that would be very tedious to fix. Perhaps changing the outline of the invisible button to something more visible would encourage willing users to click where their actions would take anticipated consequences. Not exactly the kind of expectation good designers tend to make.

This project was intended mostly as a proof of concept encouraging others to explore with slide-based systems (e.g, Google slides, PowerPoint) and see what atypical applications are possible. The example I use here is unusual, but this technique of using multiple objects to control links to multiple slides is a technique suited to many applications.

683 total views

Back in the day when you had to purchase records and listen to music on the radio, there used to be stations that carried a weekly top 40 show during which the program host would count down (play) the most popular songs of the week from the bottom to the top. Thinking about the title now I would have to guess at why 40 was the magical number. I asked Google and speculation was that 40 was the number of 45s a jukebox held or the number of songs that could be played during the most popular shows.

I came across an annual top 40 that lists the popularity of EdTech Top 40.

Learn Platform makes an extension available that allows the use of applications to be quantified. The company can then provide data on use at a national level, but individual districts can also collect data on use within a district. The company proposes that it may be helpful to identify whether intended applications are actually being used and to identify applications that just show up.

The company collected data from more than 250,000 educators and 2,000,000 students during this past year. The composite data allow an interested party to consider the most popular edtech services used by educators or students across 10 different categories. The voluntary nature of participation (at least at the level of a district) could easily bias the data collected as far as what typical use might be, but the relative rank of different applications and changes from one year to the next could be useful especially to those of us who from time to time comment on trends and perhaps make decisions about the preparation of future educators.

22 total views

Google has released an app for taking handwritten notes named Cursive. Cursive can be obtained from https://cursive.apps.chrome rather than the Play Store. The app works by progressive download so it works a little differently than other apps.

I have explored Cursive and will offer some basic comments below. I would not personally use Cursive, but I would not rely on handwritten notes on paper or any digital device because of the quality of my handwriting and because I can simply take notes more effectively from a keyboard. Cursive is not unique in allowing handwritten notes, but it is free and intended for Chromebook users.

Some observations. I have a Chromebook Pixel, but cannot see using this device because while it has a touch screen it is designed in the form facter of a typical laptop and extended writing on the screen does not make ergonomic sense. I explored Cursive with my Acer Tab 10 tablet which is a native Chrome device. It is several years old and probably underpowered by today’s standards. My assumption is that Cursive was designed for a Chromebook convertible or flip device.

The following is the Cursive interface with the tool options across the top of the screen and other options (e.g., copy to clipboard, export as pdf) available from a dropdown menu. The tools include a pen or brush, an eraser, a way to extend the keyboard, and to import images.

Here is what my effort to hand write notes generated.

I tried to generate notes at a rate I think might be necessary to record notes in a class. My handwriting is this bad. I also was using a short stylus (I call it golf pencil length) – my Apple pencil does not work with other touchscreens. Even with an older tablet, I found the lag (time between a movement and consequence appearing on the screen) to exist, but not present a serious problem. The issue that did frustrate me was the requirement that I not touch any part of the screen (e.g. my palm) while trying to write or draw. This creates a strained writing posture that has to limit the quality of what is put down and would become tiring when taking notes during a long presentation. Apple has found a way around this issue, but I cannot speak to whether solutions have been found on other chrome devices.

My recommendation – if you have a Chrome device that you would like to use to take cursive notes, I would suggest you give Cursive a try. It is easy enough to add to your device and learn to use and it costs you nothing to give it a try.

P.S. Here is a review from someone with better handwriting.

62 total views

I had always assumed I had to add something to allow me to make screen recordings on my Chromebook. However, recent improvements in the OS offer a built-in video recording capability.

You activate screen recording from the popup that reveals such information as your clock, wifi strength, and internet strength at the bottom right of your screen (shift+CTRL+show windows icon for those who prefer to rely on keyboard shortcuts). The screen capture icons is then used to access the features to control screen capture and screen recording (make certain your OS is up to date).

I could not figure out how to take a screen capture of the active screen capture controls so I had to use my digital camera. Controls will appear at the bottom of the window allowing recording to be activated and to set the size of the window to be recorded. A record button will appear to start the recording. A red button appearing at the bottom of the screen is used to stop the recording.

I generate most of the recordings I create on a Mac and have typically relied on Apple’s Quicktime to do so. I know that many educators have used Screencastify to record video from their Chromebooks. Screencastify has one great feature not available in the Chrome builtin or Apple’s Quicktime, it allows an insert recorded from the computer’s camera to appear on top of the screen being recorded. This “see my teacher view” seems more appealing to me. There is a free version of ScreenCastify limited to five-minute videos. The unlimited version (for educators) is $29 (for a limited time).

38 total views

The following is a repost of something I wrote in 2011. I have been reading about memory and the value of revisiting memories you find difficult to recall without cuing. There is a connection here. I decided my own writing would be interesting to re-examine as it reflects thinking I was doing at a given point of time and how the possible relevance may have been forgotten. The post concerned my reflection on expertise and how it is accepted or rejected. Thinking about what I was thinking about.

From 2011

A recent interview by Steve Hargadon (Future of Education) featured Douglas Rushkoff (Program or Be Programmed) (also see this etsy post). The simple version of the message, I think, is that we should participate now to shape how our digital tools are used because these tools will end up defining our future. I admit to not having this book on my reading list at this point, but some of the ideas did seem interesting.

The author’s response to a particular question caught my attention.  The question directed at Rushkoff pretty much amounted to “Why do some who produce content deserve to be paid for their efforts and others do not?” So, the questions are being asked of a multi-book author who is compensated for his writing activities. And, the question is related to the premis offered by that author that we need to understand the technologies we are creating because our experiences and our assumptions end up being shaped by these creations. Part of the background for the question was related to participatory culture (e.g., bloggers) and the opportunity for so many to offer their opinions and how such opinions may influence others.

The author’s response focused on journalism and argued that journalists should be compensated while bloggers possibly should not because of the preparation, evaluation, and integration that went into the products generated by journalists, but not necessarily the products generated by bloggers.

This got me thinking about the topic of “what are we willing to pay for?” I agree with Rushkoff that we may fail to appreciate expertise when a technology system offers no apparent way to differentiate the process that went into the generation of an information product. On the surface Rushkoff’s position makes some  sense, but it occurred to me that while one might conclude that the processes of preparation, evaluation, and integration warrant compensation should one necessarily conclude that those who are paid have engaged in these processes?

We typically pay someone else for services we are either unable or would rather not perform for ourselves. A journalist potentially has access to information sources the rest of us do not have and has the time to carefully evaluate these sources in order to provide a more concise and accurate account for us to consider.

However, the confabulation of payment with a title can lead to other problems Rushkoff did not identify. Perhaps we are now at the point where definitions of “the press” and “journalism” are somewhat ambiguous and assumptions associated with these terms problematic. “Gets paid” seems an agreed upon characteristic of both the official “press” and the occupation of “journalist”. What about characteristics such as “objective” or “critical”? How about “entertaining” and “agenda supporting”?

I completely agree with Rushkoff’s argument that we need to pay attention as technologies evolve because our technologies end up shaping us. Blogs are the least of our problems. We should have been more aware as cable television allowed the creation of “channels with a perspective”. We now think we are being informed by paid professionals who remain employed by a broadcasting company because they can take a given event and interpret it to conform to the philosophy or bias of the channel that employs them.

I think we need some kind of rating system that better defines the basis for the analysis that goes into the preparation of the content we consume. The disclaimer “the views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position of this station” needs to be reworked for certain programming. Perhaps the statement should read “the views expressed here reflect the predictable bias of this station”. Keeping the spin going in the same direction may take considerable talent.

19 total views