Re: Ok, http://gperiodic.seul.org exists

[Malonowa <malonowa@wanadoo.fr>]

Doug Loss wrote:

> > Remember that teachers are not computing experts and therefore more often than
> > not require education on how to implement a software package effectively.
> >
> This is exactly what the Educational HOWTOs are intended to address.  It
> occurs to me (at least in part because of Roman's critiques) that
> calling them Educational HOWTOs may give the wrong impression, that they
> will take the form of the Linux Documentation Project's HOWTOs.  Perhaps
> we should call them Implementation Guides, or (how does Sun put it)
> Answer Books.
>

I think using the words 'implementation' or 'deployment' is better. But really, each
package should have it's own - and then it's just the manual for the software. When it
comes to broader software packages such as word-processing, e-mail etc. Then you're
probably better off writing some sort of book(let) about using IT in the classroom
generally.

You mention, 'The program's usage in the classroom is something that both the
software authors and the educators who test it will have to come up
with; it's sort of a chicken and egg problem--how do you cover a
programs classroom usage until it's actually been used in the classroom?'

If you can't cover the program's classroom usage before you write the product then you
shouldn't even try to write the product. What's the point of producing a product when
you have no idea as to whether the idea is suitable or not?

I've developed educational software commercially for 7 years. I've sat in meetings
where we've discussed product developments for 3 years in advance. Believe me - we do
our research and we know exactly what needs to be done long before anything is ever
coded.

> > I think this goes for all software that SEUL is involved in as well. You need to
> > get your projects up to a commercial standard for them to be useful and for
> > people in the world to sit up and notice your work.
> >
> I'm unclear on what this commercial standard is.  seul-edu isn't going
> to become an alternative production and distribution organization
> equivalent to say, Davidson and Associates.  I rather think of us as the
> equivalent to an "in-house" software development team, just with a very
> large house.

What I'm referring to here is that fact that although we're not selling a product, we
are producing them. If the world is to notice what we're doing and be impressed then
these projects should be managed in a similar way to the business world.

Commerce has a lot of bad things but there are also some good things to be learned
from a couple of centuries worth of research.

I think the main things are overall strategy, policy, identifying market needs,
project management, advertising, etc. etc. These all do apply to SEUL-EDU. The
difference only being that you don't make money.

Have you considered that development volunteers may look to you to provide these
things as a vehicle to assist their work?

The more consistent a message is and the longer you deliver it consistently, the more
effective the message will be.