Re: Alpha Tutorial Videos
I suggest that there be an overall structure to the videos and content in them. Perhaps develop a tree diagram. Start with one node on desktop basics and another on web basics. Then below each have severate nodes covering topics of interest for the "next level" of learning A5. If you do this on paper (or visio) and view it and have various people comment on it, I think you can end up with somewhat shorter but more focused videos on the various topics.
(And yes I know that exists a structure to a log of short, focused videos that to a beginner seem to be on very advanced topics.)
Even on a topic such as grids I would see an "Advanced Basic", "Intermediate" and "Advanced". When you get to the advanced they probably should be "Advanced - xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" where the x's is a specific topic or capability.
I also think that there should be listed prerequisites for each topic. If it were delivered from choosing off such a structure, the prereqs might be obvious. Buy instead of explaining some basics, as mentioned above, in a more advanced topic, the trainer could simply mention that "In this course you need to already know......." If you don't go back to some of the earlier material and perhaps reference some earlier training that covers those topics.
As a new user/evaluator I found learning even all the basics I needed to know to get a working sample web app running daunting. I have read various posts expressing "daunting" sometimes using different terms.
I got past my initial understanding issues by listening to (most so far) of the Steve Working video Volume I. But for a beginner/evaluator I do not believe that one should have to pay additional $ for learning that.
Just my thoughts. YMMV
Bob
I suggest that there be an overall structure to the videos and content in them. Perhaps develop a tree diagram. Start with one node on desktop basics and another on web basics. Then below each have severate nodes covering topics of interest for the "next level" of learning A5. If you do this on paper (or visio) and view it and have various people comment on it, I think you can end up with somewhat shorter but more focused videos on the various topics.
(And yes I know that exists a structure to a log of short, focused videos that to a beginner seem to be on very advanced topics.)
Even on a topic such as grids I would see an "Advanced Basic", "Intermediate" and "Advanced". When you get to the advanced they probably should be "Advanced - xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" where the x's is a specific topic or capability.
I also think that there should be listed prerequisites for each topic. If it were delivered from choosing off such a structure, the prereqs might be obvious. Buy instead of explaining some basics, as mentioned above, in a more advanced topic, the trainer could simply mention that "In this course you need to already know......." If you don't go back to some of the earlier material and perhaps reference some earlier training that covers those topics.
As a new user/evaluator I found learning even all the basics I needed to know to get a working sample web app running daunting. I have read various posts expressing "daunting" sometimes using different terms.
I got past my initial understanding issues by listening to (most so far) of the Steve Working video Volume I. But for a beginner/evaluator I do not believe that one should have to pay additional $ for learning that.
Just my thoughts. YMMV
Bob
Comment