Does multimedia science work?

Yes.

That would be a short blog post - but things are a little more complicated. There is no doubt that some multimedia presentations of science work. A great example is Marcus Chown's Solar System app for the iPad. I confess I haven't played with it yet (as soon as iPads come back in stock, I will be reviewing it), but by all accounts it is superb, really making use of the multimedia environment. But elsewhere I have more mixed feelings.

Some new technology gurus insist that we all should be moving to video. 'Why aren't all authors doing videos to promote their material?' they cry, or 'Why do you still bother with print at all?' I don't know if it's just me, but I have a very low tolerance of videos. I can watch a video online for maybe two minutes - beyond that, I can't be bothered. I don't understand why exactly. I'm quite happy to sit through a one hour documentary or a two hour movie on the TV, but stick me in front of an online video and I want to be moving on. It has to be brilliant to grab my attention - and the fact is most of these videos aren't. The worst thing is, with words I can scan through and get a jist very quickly - it's just not possible with a video where you have to plod through at a fixed pace. Compared with text they are boringly linear.

It's the same with audio. Unless I'm in the car, when it's a godsend, I can't be bothered to listen to anything for more than a couple of minutes. Even the excellent RSC podcasts on elements and compounds. I really struggle to listen to a whole five minutes. I know quite a few people do, so perhaps it's just my pathetic attention span. Apparently those podcasts are downloaded at a rate of around 50,000 a month. Yet this doesn't prove, of course, that everyone listens end to end. Again it's that relentless linearity that does for me. I like to be able to scan, to jump around. I want to be in control.

The good news is that apps like Solar System do give this control back to the multimedia viewer. But the bad news is these are always likely to be high budget productions. The great thing about text is anyone can do it at minimal cost. The same in theory goes for podcasts and videos, but to my mind less effectively. Before anyone trumpets the end of print, let's celebrate its flexibility and ease of production.

If you are the sort of person who can cope with video, here's one I managed to watch for at least 4 minutes. It shows some examples of what can be done with a top end multimedia book - and it's very impressive.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog