Stone Video Progress Report
Brother Jon came by this weekend to help me work on part 2 of “To Describe a Stone.” The project has grown into a beast. I keep wanting to do more research. I may end up writing a book out of this.
We shot more video footage and produced the actual stone description. Now I’m creating the documentation of how we produced the description. The whole idea is to show the nuts and bolts of a deep learning process that was inspired by something humble. It’s just like that Stone Soup folk tale, with a real stone inspiring us to learn, instead of make a soup.
Meanwhile, we created a new video about different challenge: testing an “Easy Button.”
I really enjoyed watching the video about the challenge to test the “Easy Button”.
I found it interesting to see the comparison between James and Jon, especially during the introduction.
Jon: “Hi, my name is Jon Bach. This is an Easy Button”.
James: “My mission is to test this object”.
Within a testing exercise I found it interesting that neither Jon nor James was more specific on the testing mission. What where you trying to learn during this testing exercise.
Also interesting is that Jon defined refers to the “Easy Button”, while James refers to “this object”. As such Jon makes an assumption that may not necessarily be correct. In this specific exercise it may have been obvious, but what if the object was really a candy holder that looks like an Easy Button”. I have never seen Easy Buttons as candy holders, but I have seen Wii Remote controls as candy holders. To avoid the these false assumptions at the beginning of the exercise I preferred James description while referring to “this object”.
[James' Reply: You'd have to see the unedited video to draw much of a conclusion about the differences in our styles.]
Comment by Erwin Van Trier — July 4, 2009 @ 4:19 am
Great exercise, testing a device with one button.
While testing the Easy Button, did you ever lament the fact that you only had one? Or did you think you ought to collaborate with the person who had another one?
Not my idea, but my colleague Steve who said “If you had two, I wonder if one would be ‘easier’ than the other?”
[James' Reply: We had four. However, it did not occur to me to do a side by side comparison. Good idea!]
Comment by Danny Faught — July 27, 2009 @ 11:36 am