::fibreculture:: WebCT, Open Source and Beyond

[Karen Woo]

I'd like to pick up on Julian's point about how people's experiences
with a piece of software can be so different. I teach an elementary
webpage construction course for second year and mature-age Education
students. We had 3 software packages in mind - Dreamweaver, FrontPage
and Composer. 
 
Dreamweaver was quickly ruled out because of the cost to the lab, as
well as the fact that we don't expect our students (as teachers) to be
using the tool professionally later. 
 
Then we chose FrontPage because it's more "user-friendly" and it came as
part of Microsoft Office. We used it for 1 semester. However, it got
separated from the rest of Office in 2003 and many students complained
about the lack of access to software at home. I also didn't like
FrontPage because it automates many processes (like saving files with
special characters) that causes problems for students later on. 
 
So finally we went back to Composer. Students managed, though admittedly
Composer scares more students than FrontPage - but many complained how
limited it was, and I think the most classic complaint was that a
student actually went to a bookshop and couldn't find a book on how to
use Composer. So for the final assignment, out of the 100 students, 1
used Dreamweaver (30days trial) instead, about 8 used FrontPage, and the
rest used Composer. 
 
Now we don't teach webpage constructions anymore, but looking back I
think Composer's still the best choice because it provided the platform
for students to learn the basics and empowered them to use any software
they like in the future. Plus, it fits well with the economical
considerations we and our students anticipate to have. 
 
In regards to WebCT and FOSS, I think the scale of the software makes
our questions quite different. The assumption that we can have one size
fit all for all disciplines is the key concern. However, whilst I
support FOSS for teaching and learning, I think at its current state, it
is not good enough to ensure security, stable access for the more basic
functions needed to run distance ed. But as Chris said, the picture
would be quite different if the same resources we poured into other LMSs
are poured into FOSS. Though I do wonder how that would change the
developments of FOSS, because instead of favoring the departments strong
in funding, it's going to favor the departments strong in technical
expertise. 
 
Karen  
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: fibreculture-bounces at lists.myspinach.org
[mailto:fibreculture-bounces at lists.myspinach.org] On Behalf Of Julian
Knowles
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:35 PM
To: Fibreculture List
Subject: Re: ::fibreculture:: WebCT, Open Source and Beyond
 
On 10/08/2005, at 7:04 PM, Tama Leaver wrote:
Today I presented the students with a choice: we could either dedicate
our lab time to learning a semi-professional audio editing tool which
is already installed on the lab computers which students have access
to 8am-10pm daily (and which requires a paid license to use elswhere)
or use Audacity (an exceptionally good open source, multi-OS audio
editor). 

It's funny how people's experiences are so totally different!! For me,
Audacity was the application which made me completely abandon the idea
of solely using FOSS in any sort of serious production teaching
situation. I found it to be lacking in almost every respect and
'exceptionally bad'. I wrote quite a detailed critique of it on a
colleague's blog which resulted in some direct interaction with the
developers. My main gripes were; the interface is very poor, all editing
is destructive, it just can't cope with more than 2 tracks, it crashes
frequently (under OS X), none of the effects run in real time (and the
guis are not implemented), and there is no way of performing simple
editing functions like defining a region or slipping audio clips around
in the timeline - surely one of the most basic requirements of any audio
editing tool? And.... somewhat curiously, it stores its files in a
proprietary format.... (hmmm what was i saying about FOSS sometimes
being more closed?)

I think i made the comparison that it felt like an open source version
of SoundEdit16 circa 1993 (the comparison in many respects is quite
accurate), only it crashes a lot and doesn't have dog ears for a cursor!
I feel like a crank... and I don't want to stop you from singing its
praises if it is working for you but honestly, I can't endorse this
application for production/creative work!!
Without exception, the students chose Audacity and when
asked why they all gave the same reason: they can use Audacity on
their own computers now, and in the future, to do whatever they want
and have skills which are useful (without extra cost) for their own
media production elsehwere/when.

My students were the opposite.. they found it like pushing the
proverbial uphill. They ended up abandoning it and using cracks of
commercial software on their home computers (some of these students had
lost their work several times through no fault of their own). Actually,
most of the students I teach use cracks obtained from P2P networks for
their media production needs and are therefore less interested in
'legally free' but often quite crippled freeware. Whilst I don't support
this position (as I've previously stated my comfort in paying for
software that works), the reality is that they have very sophisticated
production tools in their homes at no cost. This has been the case since
the mid 90s when P2P/filesharing really took off. My experience is that
students do not feel ethically obliged to pay for the software they use.
P2P culture has, in many respects, weakened the notion that software is
something that you might pay for n the same way that mp3 trading has
weakened the idea that you pay for recordings of music that you like to
listen to. That said, a small, but noticeable number of people buy
licenses if they become serious users of an application.

Here is a copy of my critique of audacity, which I think was originally
posted to microsound. I feel like I'm negative posting this, but it is
an honest assessment, I think. I tried to be positive about things where
possible... By the way, just in case you think i am a complete crank,
there are FOSS apps I use and actually like!!!


From: Julian Knowles
Date: Mon Jan 3, 2005 5:31:40 PM Australia/Sydney

After this morning's email reading, I was genuinely enthused to do the
rounds of the open source community in a renewed search for an audio
editor/production environment which could at least be a viable
substitute at the low end for teaching purposes. I seriously want to
find one.

I downloaded 'Audacity', because open source geek friends keep telling
me that it's 'great'.. It is platform agnostic, open-source, free, and
supports VST plugins.... Sounds good so far.. I then spent the last 2
hours mucking around with it.

Man... what a disappointment. It has about the same level of
functionality as SoundEdit 16 on a Mac from the early to mid nineties,
albeit with proper undo. Here are some of its limitations

1) No real-time FX.... only file based processing with a 2-3 second
preview. GUIs for VST plugins also not working at present, resulting in
very non-intuitive parameter lists and generic faders.

2) No 'region' capturing, or clip based editing... you have to chop into
the waveform and do copy/pastes to make a simple loop.. no way of
slipping clips around in a track - you can only slip the whole track in
time.... very SoundEdit 16, very primitive, unusable.

3) Every time you import a new audio file, Audacity creates a new track.
This is annoying. There is no 'audio clips bin' like most basic editors
and no dragging and dropping of clips into the timeline from a
'library', which is a fairly basic requirement for any sort of editing.

4) You can cut and paste selected audio from one track to another, but
when you paste, Audacity automatically butts the copied audio up against
the previous and you are not able to paste at a point beyond the end of
the previous audio, nor slip the pasted audio in the timeline after you
have pasted it. The only way of creating a gap between the previous
audio and the audio you wish to paste is to 'generate silence' from a
menu before pasting. Once you have done this, you still can't easily
vary the silence gap or slip the position of the pasted audio. To
shorten the gap (bring the pasted clip earlier in the session) you have
to select some silence and 'delete' it.... then the pasted clip slips
back closer to the previous.... You can't do proper editing this way and
you will end up tearing your hair out fairly swiftly!!

5) There is no such thing as a cross-fade edit in a track. This makes
cutting and pasting audio between tracks unworkable. To achieve
cross-fades (even small ones) you need to use two tracks and write
volume automation on the outgoing and incoming audio. I cannot see how
you are able to do any real editing in this kind of environment. Even
simple 2 track editing becomes difficult.

6) No video clip import/sync

7) No midi file editing or playback, or support for VST instruments

8) A frustratingly clunky volume automation editor, where you can't nail
the break points properly without zooming in to micro level.

9) No decent navigation keyboard shortcuts, like for example jumping to
the beginning or end of a selection when zoomed in, or parking the
cursor at the end of a clip etc... or selecting from a point to the
beginning or end of a clip. The basic editing necessities aren't there -
you need basic keyboard shortcuts for navigation and selection... if you
are expected to shift click, drag and zoom everything, you will go
completely crazy in a short space of time.

There are a couple of good things, such as support for 96khz/32bit,
capacity to have files of different sample rates in a session, mp3 and
ogg vorbis export, 'batch like' processing for exports and an undo
history list - but that's about it.

Some may say... well what can you expect for a free, open-source tool?
Well, fair enough, the price is right and the politics are too, but the
truth of the matter is that I would find this tool almost impossible to
deploy into even a beginner's lab, as it lacks the simple features which
allow people to grasp some of the basic principles of non-linear audio
editing and production. Herein lies the frustration of the exercise, I
think. It is difficult to generate enthusiasm for open-source tools if
the experience is a really frustrating one. As for me, I would rather
use the lite version of Bias Peak over this for simple 2 track editing
tasks, and i really hate Peak. I might use it for some ogg vorbis or mp3
exports.. but that would be it.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.myspinach.org/pipermail/fibreculture/attachments/20050811/270b8000/attachment-0001.htm