Flexknowlogy - Jared Stein's ARCHIVED blog - update to jaredstein.org » web

Domain Changed to jaredstein.org

Jared Stein — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:15:02 +0000

I’m changing the domain of this blog from the over-long “flexknowlogy.learningfield.org” to ” jaredstein.org“. Though the change is immediate, flexknowlogy.learningfield.org will persist indefinitely in order to preserve external links.

This was made easy and possible through Donncha O Caoimh’s WordPress MU Domain Mapping plug-in.

What "New Speculations"?

Jared Stein — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:05:41 +0000

Not unexpectedly, Jon Mott‘s blog post, “Outsourcing Our Memory to Google” set my mind thinking in productively curious directions–even if I’ve ended up with no conclusions, and, indeed, more questions than I began with.

I’ve finally gotten around to reading through Ong’s “Orality and Literacy” (I skimmed it as an undergrad), a book which compares primary oral cultures to literate cultures, weighing the influence of technology. Mott’s point, that we need not teach students to learn information, but rather information-finding skills, reminded me of a passage that I highlighted in the early section, “Some Psychodynamics of Orality: the development of text, though “conservative in its own ways” ultimately “frees the mind of conservative tasks, of its memory work, and thus enables the mind to turn itself to new speculation”.

I expect this idea may be elaborated on later in the book, but as I read this I automatically wondered if instant access to networked information obviates “memory work” (i.e. memorization of information) even further, and thereby further freeing the mind for “new speculation”. If so, we can understand this as ultimately an advantage, a progression leading to future intellectual and cultural developments.

The next question: are we yet ready to recognize these “new speculations” for what they are? For what they and might be?

Ong reminds that literate individuals and cultures do lose intellectual and cultural abilities that are apparent in primary oral, and so we might expect similar losses as we become an instant-networks culture. What might these losses be? I know a number of critics have pointed to attention span, “flow”, sustained and deep reading, traditional concepts of plagiarism, etc.

Blackboard Vista Triggers Quirks Mode

Jared Stein — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:25:20 +0000

Ever been annoyed by Blackboard Vista’s (or Campus Edition 6+’s) rendering of your XHTML + CSS web pages? Yeah, me too–especially on Internet Explorer. This happens because Bb Vista triggers a browser’s quirks mode in spite of DOCTYPEs and validated markup.

More than just troublesome for pretty CSS-based pages, quirks mode, triggered on standards-compliant pages, can negatively affect the usability and functionality of the learning experience. For example, we use an inline quizzing Javascript that renders questions and answer choices and feedback based on standards mode CSS. In quirks mode this self-assessment tool is useless.

Blackboard Was Made For Quirks

Basically quirks mode means the browser thinks your web skills are not up to snuff, and the browser therefore renders your CSS in a non-standard fashion. Quirks mode is triggered when a DOCTYPE, e.g.:

…is missing, or invalid, or unknown, or not where it should be (i.e. the first line of the document).

javascript:alert(document.compatMode) pasted into the Internet Explorer address bar kindly informs us that this browser is rendering this page in quirks mode. Firefox will tell you if you go to Tools > Page Info. Advanced Box Model Test

But even if you’ve been careful to put a valid DOCTYPE into your web pages, once it’s loaded up into Bb Vista and linked to, either from a Folder or a Learning Module, the browser will go into quirks mode. Why does this happen? Simple: Bb Vista inserts XHTML and JavaScript at the beginning of all web pages onload. 140+ lines of it, to be exact. It’s an odious thing to do, but, what do you expect? It’s Blackboard.

It may (or may not) be important to note that this does not happen when viewing a page in the File Manager–only when a page is loaded from a link within the course.

What You Can Do

Not much. And yet this could be a big issue for Internet Explorer users (FireFox renders page in quirks mode [not "Almost Standards Mode" as I'd hoped], yet most standards-compliant XHTML and CSS still render well).

And though most users are still on IE 6 or 7 I had some hope for a way out with Internet Explorer 8. You see, Microsoft promised that “a page explicitly opts into standards mode” when it includes “a metatag in the page that specifies IE=8 or IE=EmulateIE8″. For example:

In practice, however, this META tag alone does not force IE8 into standards mode in Bb Vista–the misplaced XHTML is apparently too much for IE8 to ignore.

So the most practical solutions I can think of are:

Write custom CSS for Blackboard that renders (or re-renders) the page according to the quirks mode box model. This could be done using Internet Explorer conditional comments, for example:
I haven’t yet considered what CSS rules would need to be written to accommodate this, but if it was possible this seem like the most robust and efficient solution.
Rewrite the page with Javascript. After Bb has loaded (or begun to load) the page, Javascript triggers a full rewrite of the page, either wiping out or rewriting the Bb XHTML and Javascript in a more appropriate location (e.g. in a targeted, ID’ed element). I’ve asked one of my developers to try this out today, but already fear the additional load time it might put on the Bb-hosted page.

Any other ideas?

If this were only about appearance I wouldn’t be raising a fuss, but this can and does affect the usability of certain e-learning tools, and forces developers to ask, “How will this work in Blackboard?” yet again.

Re. "CSS Angles" and the Future of Em-Based Scaling

Jared Stein — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:43:37 +0000

Sitepoint offered up an article by Tim Wright (CSSKarma), CSS Angles: Just the Edge Your Web Page Needs!, which shows that increasing the size of a single border property results in an angular object that can be placed behind things. After some experimentation I found a new solution and a new conundrum.

Tim’s applied this to “shelf shadows”, where a nav item appears to be propped up on a shelf with a shadow below:

I looked at the CSS and thought, “This is cute, but could be more elegant with just two 1kb images.” So I wrote it, and it turned out fine. In fact, it turned out better, in my opinion, because the shadow edges were anti-aliased. I showed my developer Tyrel Kelsey the results, then bragged, “I can even make both the shadows and the shelf size scale with the text.” Then whipped up that solution as well.

In short, my first solution used two images: a x-repeating 1×20 “shelf” hooked to the UL, and a 10×20 “shadow” hooked to each LI in place of Tim’s border corner.

My second solution used a 1px square for the top “shelf”, and a 1px border–both hooked to the UL. The top shelf was set 1em from the top to allow for scaling.

The “shadow” was a much larger image, 100×200, and set .1em to the left and 1em from the top of each LI, thus masking it’s gargantuaness (similar to sliding doors).

It was a slick application for the same effect, but then Tyrel popped my balooon.

“Are you on FireFox 3?” Tyrel asked. “Because mine already scales on FF3, and it doesn’t look all jagged like yours.”

Page zoom. I still am on FF2, and I remembered earlier in the week how I embarrassed myself in the web design course I teach when the page zoom disturbed an effect I was demonstrating. In fact, a lot of the em-based scaling approaches so popular just a year ago are sliding towards obsolescence thanks to page zoom on IE 7+ and now on FF3 as well..

Not only are they made obsolete, current CSS-based designs that are enhanced by the elasticity (e.g. layouts with reading-width columns or other applications of em-based scaling (e.g. sliding doors) may look worse with page zoom. My second example sure did when scaled in IE7. And if you open my design 2 on FF3 and compare the page zoomed rendering to the rendering with Zoom Text Only turned on, you’ll agree that the clarity is compromised in the former.

So while I’m proud of my two CSS variations on Tim Wright’s shelf-and-shadow concept, and they are great solutions for older browsers (I can’t believe I’m referring to FF2 as “older”!), it’s also clear to me that em-based scaling and elasticity is on it’s way out, and browser-based page zoom will solve a lot of designer’s accessibility-influenced design challenges–but not, perhaps, without affecting our “tricks” of the past.

2008 Survey for People Who Make WebSites

Jared Stein — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:28:32 +0000

This morning A List Apart, my favorite Web dev periodical, put out it’s 2008 Survey for People Who Make WebSites. I made it through all 18pp. If you make Web sites, join in:

Setting Web Page Font Size Proportional to Window Size

Jared Stein — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:02:55 +0000

This article explains an experimental approach to ensuring consistent line-length and font-size for the readability of text on Web pages. This is the first time I’ve posted an article related to Web development, but I hope it to be the first of many.

Though there have been a number of articles proving the usefulness of flexible and elastic layouts in Web design, too many sites still use fixed or fluid layout. I say “too many” because the key problem both fixed and fluid hold for users lies with readability. Usability studies have shown that most users find a line length of 40 – 60 characters to be easiest to consume (though at least one report ranges from 35 – 95 and another a more modest 40 – 80, depending on the font used). This falls in line with print typography guidelines that recommend anywhere from 11-15 words per line. As you can see, there’s no final word on line-length readability, except that it falls somewhere on either side of 50 characters per line (cpl), or 13 words per line (wpl).

Presuming, then, that a Web designer wants to present reading text at around 50cpl, flexible or elastic layouts come in handy, as they measure the width of text column(s) in em space. One can set the width of the column to, say, 45em, depending on the font, and end up with a rough average of 13 words per line. The added benefit is as the user increases or decreases her font size for readability, the width of the text column increases proportionally.

Fixed width designs are often measured in pixels, and a user increasing the font size does not increase the width of the line, resulting in too few cpl. Neither do fluid designs, which are measured in %–these often result in too many cpl. And for most users with ultra-high resolution screens, fonts are often too small and require resizing.

A few years back I tackled this problem from a different angle. I thought, wouldn’t it be great if, rather than changing the size of my window and/or the size of my font for optimal readability, the font size changed automatically proportional to the size of my window? So if I had a high-res screen with my browser maximized, the font would be larger. If I had a low-res screen, the font would be smaller. In either case, the proportion would equal Your Favorite Line Length.

There is no % unit of measurement for font-size in CSS, so I had to turn to JavaScript to calculate my font’s size based on the DOM window size. A few years back, our Web developer Brandon Groff worked with me to write the JavaScript that would do this, and the effect was most elegant: here’s a quite plain example.

A few notes:

JavaScript recalculates the desired font-size based on the window size and reloads the page on resize
The font’s proportional size is based on a JavaScript variable that can be static or adjustable
Changing the value in the text input before resizing alters the font-size’s proportion. A “1″ roughly equates to 100% of the body’s width.
At least one known bug: if the user increases or decreases the font size through their browser, the script it breaks.
This JavaScript is a bit old, and I hope to evaluate it line by line for currency and efficiency.

Roger Johansson Reviews "Designing Web Navigation"

Jared Stein — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:47:30 +0000

Roger Johansson posted up a good, general review of the new O’Reilly book, “Designing Web Navigation”. The first question Johansson asks is a good one, i.e. “We need a whole book on designing Web navigation?” If you’ve ever struggled with navigation of a Web site, or know anything about the idea of the “scent of information” I think you’ll agree that the answer is, “Yes.”

How Does Video-Conferencing Technology Affect Straight Lecture?

Jared Stein — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:07:00 +0000

Chris Lott, commenting on his institution’s acquisition of Elluminate video-conferencing platform as a teaching tool concludes,

The real issue with any of these tools isn’t finding one that works, it is learning– and then teaching colleagues– how to teach in a way that takes advantage of the capabilities and doesn’t merely replicate the lecture mode in a distributed format. That’s deadly. As I always say, the only thing more deadly than the PowerPoint drone and lecture model is that same model through a mediating tool like Elluminate…About Elluminate

I agree that when video-conferencing avoiding replication of ineffective lecture modes is important; however, always the devil’s advocate (well, at least 50% of the time), have to ask, first, if this is a blanket condemnation of the lecture mode regardless of delivery method, or if the technology itself interferes with, disturbs, or detracts from the traditional lecture (which may in a classroom actually be effective).

I’m guessing most folks in educational technology or instructional design lament the continued use of straight lecture format (“sage on the stage”) regardless of delivery environment, but I, having been a student in more than a handful of damn good and several quite memorable lectures (from which I still retain a significant amount of information), causing me to assert that straight lecture is not de facto a bad thing.

At this point I have absolutely no empirical evidence that suggests straight lecture is or can be highly effective, but now (from this small comment tacked onto the end of a technology tool review, no less) I’m inspired to look into it. Comparitively speaking how effective is lecture for learning? What makes lecture more or less effective? There has to be a good deal of research on this already. (Any recommendations on salient books/articles are now being accepted!)

I can name some ailments of lectures delivered via video conferencing that I have witnessed. In both edtech informational sessions and in vendor presentations delivered via video conferencing, presenters do tend to follow a simple, generic pattern (much informed by PowerPoint) which centers on providing text-and-talk-heavy information in tedious spurts with brief pauses for “questions” (which, in and of themselves, often occur too late or at moments so ill-planned moments that they actually increase the presentations/presenter’s anesthetizing qualities). Any questions posed rarely lead to real dialogue or discussion; rather, questions are merely a challenge that the presenter must overcome before being allowed to continue with his/her script.

And though these ailments can certainly be present in a live, in-person classroom-style lecture or presentation, my instinct tells me that there’s something about phsyical human presence that either reinforces the delivery of the information, or provides for better audience attention through either overt or more subtle person-to-person engagement.

The next question, then, would be how does technology deliver methods affect the effectiveness of lecture? Video conferencing in particular should be examined, though of course some common attributes will need to be agreed upon so as to include a live fiber-optic system like we have at UVSC, or an Internet-delivered system like Elluminate.

I would hypothesize that a boring lecture in the classroom becomes worse when video-delivered, either because it becomes (a) less interesting for lack of physical presence (for whatever reason…engagement?), or (b) less compelling to one’s attention when technology-delivered (possibly because of the presence or availability of more distractors, or because of the absence of social pressure to show interest/passively participate).

It would be interesting to brainstorm presentation effectiveness on tech-delivered platforms with some ed researchers and public speaking experts. How does one leverage the live delivery method so that the end results are superior to static information delivery? How does one construct information to affect better learning? How does one engage with the audience and make an impact that may stimulate memory a la the affective factor?