During the late 1950's in the early days of ARPA (the Advanced Research Projects Agency):
"..Herbert York...was given the job [of chief scientist] and moved to ARPA from the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. When he arrived on the third floor at the Pentagon, York promptly hung a large picture of the moon on his office wall. And right beside it he hung an empty frame. He told visitors it would soon be filled with the first picture of the back side of the moon."
( From Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet )
York's placing of the empty picture frame on his wall was a great way to distill his goals down to a single representative product.
Telling visitors what would ultimately be in that frame was a great way to publicly put himself on record for that exact same goal.
As we look to our current and future goals in education, should we put an empty picture frame on our office wall?
If yes, what should we ultimately seek to put in our empty picture frame?
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Apple TV Reflection
Introduction
When trying to get audio and video from an Airplay-capable device to some type of display, one leading option is software-based (Reflector, originally known as Reflection) and another is hardware-based (Apple TV).
Reflector is a piece of OS X and Windows software that, when installed, allows the computer to receive audio and video from Airplay devices through a wireless network. That audio can then be played out of the computer and the video can be shown on a larger display or projected.
Apple TV is a small (about 4"X 4"X 1") box that will receive audio and video from Airplay devices (also through a wireless network) and then relay them through HDMI to a larger display or projector.
Which of these is the best solution in a classroom environment?
Cost
Reflection wins here. A single license is only $12.99 and the price per unit drops $2 more if five are purchased. An Apple TV is $99 plus another $60 or so if your display or projector does not have an HDMI input. In that case some type of HDMI to VGA converter, such as a Kanex ATV Pro, is necessary. If cost is your only criteria, download a copy of Reflector and purchase a license. $13 is much less than the $99 to $158 you would need to spend for Apple's solution.
Capabilities
Apple TV wins here. Reflector pretty much just does what was previously described; take Airplay signal and allow it to be played through a computer. Period. The Apple TV does that as well as several other capabilities that may or may not be useful to the classroom teacher. The Apple TV provides a good interface to use Netflix, which has a nice library of educational documentaries (consult with your lawyer as to whether or not this violates copyright law and Netflix's terms of service). Apple TV also provides a nice interface to control and play contents from an iTunes library, which could potentially be stocked by a teacher with a variety of educationally relevant audio or video. Apple TV simply has more options than Reflector, although the value of some of these may be questioned by some educators.
Performance
I think that this is a tie. Both of these solutions are subject to the idiosyncrasies of wireless networks, some of which see Airplay traffic as a threat to their ability to perform their job. An unreliable or unwelcoming wireless network probably won't discriminate between these two. Neither Apple TV or Reflector wins here.
Interface
Minor "win by a whisker" victory for Reflector; though each aspect of the rationale is up for debate.
When Reflector displays the video content coming from an Airplay device, it frames it with an image of the source device. This is really pretty cool, especially if your goal is to demo or teach about the "reflected" device itself. The Apple TV does not provide this device "context", but instead only displays the video content itself. Some might find this singular focus preferable to the flashier, shall we say, "eye candy" that Reflector provides.
Reflector is, by default, much simpler to use. This is largely a function of the absence of the additional features that the Apple TV offers. The extra Apple TV capabilities mentioned earlier make a more complicated interface necessary. If the Airplay mirroring is the only feature in which the teacher is interested, once the device is initially set up Airplay is quite easy to use and is quite competitive in the simplicity derby.
Reflection a hotly debatable winner in the interface category.
Efficiency
This category is a definitive win for the Apple TV. Reflector takes a teacher's powerful, multi-use computer and reduces it to a single-purpose utility, an Airplay conduit. This means that while that computer is being used for Reflector, the teacher is not able to do anything else with that computer. For example, no monitoring of a backchannel during a student presentation, no recording of feedback on a student project, and no additional research in response to a student's question. Sorry, teacher, you're out of luck---your computer is occupied. This sacrifice of power is extraordinary inefficient and is extraordinary significant in my mind.
My Conclusion
In my mind, the Apple TV is the overall winner for classroom use. The middle three of the five categories--Capabilities, Performance, and Interface--are all very closely competitive. Only the initial (Price) and final (Efficiency) had decisive winners. In my mind, however, the Efficiency component outweighs the Price component. This is largely because of that hidden cost of Reflector, the removal from normal service of a multi-facitied computer to merely be an Airplay conduit. That is too much of price to pay.
Let me know what you think. I am on Twitter as @pdlindgren.
When trying to get audio and video from an Airplay-capable device to some type of display, one leading option is software-based (Reflector, originally known as Reflection) and another is hardware-based (Apple TV).
Reflector is a piece of OS X and Windows software that, when installed, allows the computer to receive audio and video from Airplay devices through a wireless network. That audio can then be played out of the computer and the video can be shown on a larger display or projected.
Apple TV is a small (about 4"X 4"X 1") box that will receive audio and video from Airplay devices (also through a wireless network) and then relay them through HDMI to a larger display or projector.
Which of these is the best solution in a classroom environment?
Cost
Reflection wins here. A single license is only $12.99 and the price per unit drops $2 more if five are purchased. An Apple TV is $99 plus another $60 or so if your display or projector does not have an HDMI input. In that case some type of HDMI to VGA converter, such as a Kanex ATV Pro, is necessary. If cost is your only criteria, download a copy of Reflector and purchase a license. $13 is much less than the $99 to $158 you would need to spend for Apple's solution.
Capabilities
Apple TV wins here. Reflector pretty much just does what was previously described; take Airplay signal and allow it to be played through a computer. Period. The Apple TV does that as well as several other capabilities that may or may not be useful to the classroom teacher. The Apple TV provides a good interface to use Netflix, which has a nice library of educational documentaries (consult with your lawyer as to whether or not this violates copyright law and Netflix's terms of service). Apple TV also provides a nice interface to control and play contents from an iTunes library, which could potentially be stocked by a teacher with a variety of educationally relevant audio or video. Apple TV simply has more options than Reflector, although the value of some of these may be questioned by some educators.
Performance
I think that this is a tie. Both of these solutions are subject to the idiosyncrasies of wireless networks, some of which see Airplay traffic as a threat to their ability to perform their job. An unreliable or unwelcoming wireless network probably won't discriminate between these two. Neither Apple TV or Reflector wins here.
Interface
Minor "win by a whisker" victory for Reflector; though each aspect of the rationale is up for debate.
When Reflector displays the video content coming from an Airplay device, it frames it with an image of the source device. This is really pretty cool, especially if your goal is to demo or teach about the "reflected" device itself. The Apple TV does not provide this device "context", but instead only displays the video content itself. Some might find this singular focus preferable to the flashier, shall we say, "eye candy" that Reflector provides.
Reflector is, by default, much simpler to use. This is largely a function of the absence of the additional features that the Apple TV offers. The extra Apple TV capabilities mentioned earlier make a more complicated interface necessary. If the Airplay mirroring is the only feature in which the teacher is interested, once the device is initially set up Airplay is quite easy to use and is quite competitive in the simplicity derby.
Reflection a hotly debatable winner in the interface category.
Efficiency
This category is a definitive win for the Apple TV. Reflector takes a teacher's powerful, multi-use computer and reduces it to a single-purpose utility, an Airplay conduit. This means that while that computer is being used for Reflector, the teacher is not able to do anything else with that computer. For example, no monitoring of a backchannel during a student presentation, no recording of feedback on a student project, and no additional research in response to a student's question. Sorry, teacher, you're out of luck---your computer is occupied. This sacrifice of power is extraordinary inefficient and is extraordinary significant in my mind.
My Conclusion
In my mind, the Apple TV is the overall winner for classroom use. The middle three of the five categories--Capabilities, Performance, and Interface--are all very closely competitive. Only the initial (Price) and final (Efficiency) had decisive winners. In my mind, however, the Efficiency component outweighs the Price component. This is largely because of that hidden cost of Reflector, the removal from normal service of a multi-facitied computer to merely be an Airplay conduit. That is too much of price to pay.
Let me know what you think. I am on Twitter as @pdlindgren.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
My Recipe for Fake-uccino's
NOTE: No guarantee or warranty is associated with this recipe. Use at your own discretion and risk. Provide for entertainment purposes only.
There are those in our household that enjoy the StarBuck's bottled Frappuccino's ( at more than $2 per 9.5 Fluid Ounce bottle). So....I set out to create a homemade version that would satisfy my family Frappuccino experts.
Ingredients listed on the bottles which served as the launchpad for the creation of this recipe:
Brewed Starbucks Coffee
Low fat milk
Sugar
Cocoa
Pectin
Ascorbic Acid
I start with a well-cleaned and sanitized 9.5 Fl. Oz. Frappuccino bottle. It is important to do this since this recipe has no preservatives in it. Goodbye Pectin and Ascorbic Acid! I'm no food scientist but I'm assuming that these ingredients are in there to keep the stuff viable and good looking over long spans of time. Therefore, it is also important not to keep these drinks around too long before drinking them and to keep them well refrigerated.
After that, I follow a 4 - 2 - 1 - 1/2 system in adding the ingredients. To the bottle I add:
4 Tablespoons of 2% milk.
2 Tablespoons of Sugar
1 Teaspoon of Hershey's Chocolate Syrup ( Please note that this is the only ingredient not measured in Tablespoons).
1/2 Tablespoon of Pur Java ( I started adding this when I received complaints that the coffee taste wasn't strong enough).
I then fill the bottle the rest of the way with regular, leftover coffee (usually just Folgers Classic Roast ) that has cooled down.
After putting on the lid securely I move to an open area so that I can safely shake the bottle vigorously to get the sugar dissolved and all the ingredients mixed up. The bottle then gets chilled in the refrigerator until it reaches a nice, cold drinking temperature. NOTE: It will likely be necessary for the end user to shake up the bottle again as the ingredients tend to settle out ( particularly the chocolate syrup ).
I reached this recipe after several permutations; all the while being guided by feedback from my in-house expert. I have never actually tasted this stuff myself; I don't really like coffee. I am more of a cream soda person myself.
Have fun!
There are those in our household that enjoy the StarBuck's bottled Frappuccino's ( at more than $2 per 9.5 Fluid Ounce bottle). So....I set out to create a homemade version that would satisfy my family Frappuccino experts.
Ingredients listed on the bottles which served as the launchpad for the creation of this recipe:
Brewed Starbucks Coffee
Low fat milk
Sugar
Cocoa
Pectin
Ascorbic Acid
I start with a well-cleaned and sanitized 9.5 Fl. Oz. Frappuccino bottle. It is important to do this since this recipe has no preservatives in it. Goodbye Pectin and Ascorbic Acid! I'm no food scientist but I'm assuming that these ingredients are in there to keep the stuff viable and good looking over long spans of time. Therefore, it is also important not to keep these drinks around too long before drinking them and to keep them well refrigerated.
After that, I follow a 4 - 2 - 1 - 1/2 system in adding the ingredients. To the bottle I add:
4 Tablespoons of 2% milk.
2 Tablespoons of Sugar
1 Teaspoon of Hershey's Chocolate Syrup ( Please note that this is the only ingredient not measured in Tablespoons).
1/2 Tablespoon of Pur Java ( I started adding this when I received complaints that the coffee taste wasn't strong enough).
I then fill the bottle the rest of the way with regular, leftover coffee (usually just Folgers Classic Roast ) that has cooled down.
After putting on the lid securely I move to an open area so that I can safely shake the bottle vigorously to get the sugar dissolved and all the ingredients mixed up. The bottle then gets chilled in the refrigerator until it reaches a nice, cold drinking temperature. NOTE: It will likely be necessary for the end user to shake up the bottle again as the ingredients tend to settle out ( particularly the chocolate syrup ).
I reached this recipe after several permutations; all the while being guided by feedback from my in-house expert. I have never actually tasted this stuff myself; I don't really like coffee. I am more of a cream soda person myself.
Have fun!
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Can you add a weblink to a Google Calendar event?
On July 23rd, @hcallihan tweeted the following...
" Question: Can you add a weblink to a Google Calendar event? I can add a file, but want a weblink?? #gpsummit #nebedu "
Someone has probably already answered this question but I finally had a few minutes to explore it for myself and thought I would write this up. I believe that this is possible provided a couple of conditions are met:
1. The HTML for a hyperlink must be included with the web address in the Google Calendar Event description. For example, if I wish to have a clickable link to Apple's website in the description of a calendar event I would need to enter all of the following into the description field of the event:
" Question: Can you add a weblink to a Google Calendar event? I can add a file, but want a weblink?? #gpsummit #nebedu "
Someone has probably already answered this question but I finally had a few minutes to explore it for myself and thought I would write this up. I believe that this is possible provided a couple of conditions are met:
1. The HTML for a hyperlink must be included with the web address in the Google Calendar Event description. For example, if I wish to have a clickable link to Apple's website in the description of a calendar event I would need to enter all of the following into the description field of the event:
<a href="http://www.apple.com">Apple's Website</a>
The text shown above in red would be replaced with the web address to which you want the link to go. The blue text shown above should be replaced with what you want shown as the text for the user to click upon.
2. It appears that the active hyperlinks in the description of an event will only work if the entire calendar is shared. I tried to get this to work when trying to share just the individual event. In that case the link was not active and actually displayed the address plus a remnant of the HTML.
Here is a link to a test calendar that I have made public and have embedded into a simple web page. The July 26th, 2012 event should have an active link to Apple's website in the description...
Link to a web page with an embedded Google Calendar.
I hope that this made sense and is found to be helpful. Further questions about this could be directed to @pdlindgren on Twitter.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Test an Aurasma Aura?
Aurasma Lite is a free app for the iPad 2, smart phones, and other tablet devices equipped with cameras. It allows one to view a predetermined "trigger image" within the app and then have augmented content appear overlayed or next to it on the screen. This augmented content can be a still image or a video. The combination of the trigger image and the augmented content to be displayed is called an Aura.
If you are interested in seeing a simple aura that I have created:
1. Install the Aurasma Lite app on your iPad or other tablet/smart device (camera required).
2. Subscribe to my Aurasma channel by clicking on this link while you are on your smart, camera-equiped device (it won't work in a non-mobile browser): http://bit.ly/Hb8k9E
3. View this image by itself and then print it out (it does not need to be printed in color). NOTE: It actually doesn't need to be printed out at all. I just got the trigger image to work by just viewing it on my laptop screen...
If you are interested in seeing a simple aura that I have created:
1. Install the Aurasma Lite app on your iPad or other tablet/smart device (camera required).
2. Subscribe to my Aurasma channel by clicking on this link while you are on your smart, camera-equiped device (it won't work in a non-mobile browser): http://bit.ly/Hb8k9E
3. View this image by itself and then print it out (it does not need to be printed in color). NOTE: It actually doesn't need to be printed out at all. I just got the trigger image to work by just viewing it on my laptop screen...
4. Start up the Aurasma Lite app an hold it above the picture you printed out (or point it at the picture in this blog post). An overlay should appear that shows where some of the Westside Community Schools school buildings are. NOTE: I threw these images together quickly to test this concept. The map of the buildings is incomplete.
5. Let me know how it worked ( Twitter: @pdlindgren )
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Putting Images With a Google Form?
WARNING: VERY ROUGH DIRECTIONS...
Last week @j_allen asked on Twitter if it was possible to embed images into a Google Form. After a bit of research and playing around, I was not able to find an easy way to do this.
The best approximation that I could come up with involves embedding the form into a page on a Google Site (actually, this should work on any web page--we'll use Sites in this example). Images could then be added to the page to go along with the form items.
When in a Google Spreadsheet that has a Form, if you pull down the FORM menu you should read "Embed form in a web page". This will take you to a snippet of code that may be copied and pasted into the HTML of a web page.
So here is my quick and dirty overview of the process:
Last week @j_allen asked on Twitter if it was possible to embed images into a Google Form. After a bit of research and playing around, I was not able to find an easy way to do this.
The best approximation that I could come up with involves embedding the form into a page on a Google Site (actually, this should work on any web page--we'll use Sites in this example). Images could then be added to the page to go along with the form items.
When in a Google Spreadsheet that has a Form, if you pull down the FORM menu you should read "Embed form in a web page". This will take you to a snippet of code that may be copied and pasted into the HTML of a web page.
So here is my quick and dirty overview of the process:
- Split a Google Sites web page into 2 columns (Layout menu when editing a Google Sites page).
- Click in the left hand column and then click the <html> link at the top of the page.
- Paste in the snippet of embed code from the form and then click UPDATE.
- Click in the right hand column and begin adding your images.
This may take some playing around to get the images into the appropriate location in order to line up with the appropriate component of the form.
Again, this is a crude description of one possible solution to this problem. I haven't thoroughly evaluated whether this is practical, just that it is possible. Here is a quick page I threw together to demonstrate the concept. It has a very short, simple form in the left column and an image I grabbed at random placed in the right column.
I am certainly open to other suggestions and would love to hear if this idea is workable for anyone.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
iBooks Author Disappointment: Revolution Averted
I will leave the lamentation over Apple's iBooks Author user agreement to others. My disappointment is reserved for the opportunities missed by what the software does not appear to allow me to create.
iBooks Author offers beautiful layouts, stunning colors, multimedia components, and impressive interactivity (through the Review widget and other features). These are all wonderful steps up from a traditional textbook. This new system may be considered revolutionary by some. Yet from the results of my early exploration, I am afraid that a real component of revolution has been missed. I hope I am wrong, but...
I have tried adding various HTML widgets to an iBook. The ones that work seem to be those that are completely self-contained. The standard Dashboard Calculator widget works fine within an iBook. Regrettably, it seems that any that need to pull from an external server or feed do not.
The promise of adding HTML widgets was very exciting. I envisioned them as dynamic portals opening users to a vast universe of content and interactivity--that could be embedded amongst the static content of an iBook's pages. Integrated polling websites, embedded RSS feeds, or any up-to-date content an instructor/book-builder wanted to incorporate would make iBooks truly engaging, interactive, and completely malleable to needs of the student.
Sadly, when a student opens one of the new iBooks on Day#2 it will look pretty much the same as it did on Day #1. I realize that hyperlinks to external content are allowed, but having the content within an iBooks' page change automatically over time would be truly magical and powerful. Hyperlinks within digital books aren't anything new, self-updating pages would be.
I think I understand Apple's decision on this. If an iBook produced with iBooks Author is to be evaluated for acceptance to the iBooks Textbook Store, it can't be a moving target. Otherwise a page whose content was completely appropriate at the time of approval might have a dynamic page that later includes something entirely inappropriate.
Please don't mistake this critique as ingratitude. iBooks Author is a piece of software that allows me to do things I would never have been able to do. It also cost me nothing. I just wish that the dynamic potential of self-updating HTML widgets could be allowed for iBooks not intended for distribution through the Apple store.
Many iPad fans will find Alan C. Kay's 1972 paper A Personal Computer for Children of All Ages to be very interesting. While at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Kay imagined the Dynabook. Much of what he envisioned seems to have found a place in reality in the Apple iPad. I'm a demanding person, though, and I want even just a little more "dyna" in my iBooks.
Back to sports, Ted, the revolution has been averted.
iBooks Author offers beautiful layouts, stunning colors, multimedia components, and impressive interactivity (through the Review widget and other features). These are all wonderful steps up from a traditional textbook. This new system may be considered revolutionary by some. Yet from the results of my early exploration, I am afraid that a real component of revolution has been missed. I hope I am wrong, but...
These new iBooks do not appear to allow HTML widgets that dynamically pull content from other internet sites.
I have tried adding various HTML widgets to an iBook. The ones that work seem to be those that are completely self-contained. The standard Dashboard Calculator widget works fine within an iBook. Regrettably, it seems that any that need to pull from an external server or feed do not.
The promise of adding HTML widgets was very exciting. I envisioned them as dynamic portals opening users to a vast universe of content and interactivity--that could be embedded amongst the static content of an iBook's pages. Integrated polling websites, embedded RSS feeds, or any up-to-date content an instructor/book-builder wanted to incorporate would make iBooks truly engaging, interactive, and completely malleable to needs of the student.
Sadly, when a student opens one of the new iBooks on Day#2 it will look pretty much the same as it did on Day #1. I realize that hyperlinks to external content are allowed, but having the content within an iBooks' page change automatically over time would be truly magical and powerful. Hyperlinks within digital books aren't anything new, self-updating pages would be.
I think I understand Apple's decision on this. If an iBook produced with iBooks Author is to be evaluated for acceptance to the iBooks Textbook Store, it can't be a moving target. Otherwise a page whose content was completely appropriate at the time of approval might have a dynamic page that later includes something entirely inappropriate.
Please don't mistake this critique as ingratitude. iBooks Author is a piece of software that allows me to do things I would never have been able to do. It also cost me nothing. I just wish that the dynamic potential of self-updating HTML widgets could be allowed for iBooks not intended for distribution through the Apple store.
Many iPad fans will find Alan C. Kay's 1972 paper A Personal Computer for Children of All Ages to be very interesting. While at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Kay imagined the Dynabook. Much of what he envisioned seems to have found a place in reality in the Apple iPad. I'm a demanding person, though, and I want even just a little more "dyna" in my iBooks.
Back to sports, Ted, the revolution has been averted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)