Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

learning inside ™?

by Leave a Comment

I was just reading the posts on the MacWorld Keynote by Phil Shiller, and saw some interesting themes in comments: empowering users, and learning as a key selling item.   These are certainly worth expl0ring.

On the TUAW coverage, they made the comment “Y’know, it seems like iMovie and iPhoto are now designed to repair human failings.”   They were referring to how iMovie could remove any handheld jitters in your movies, and how iPhoto could do some autotagging both geographically and based upon face recognition.   That really struck me as a fantastic product advantage: it makes you better.   It doesn’t improve your skillset, but it allows you to create better outcomes: it’s performance support.

Which is a different solution, but one that is often a more apt one than providing a training course.   People sometimes want to learn how to do it themselves, and other times they are just as happy to have a smart system partner with them to reduce their cognitive load and still produce superior results.   Hence the ‘performance focus’ stage in my strategic approach. It’s part of an overall approach, and also of a performance ecosystem.   I hope it’s in your repertoire.

The other interesting announcement came from their music application: GarageBand.   In it, they now have tutorials on guitar and keyboards; introductory videos built in to teach you instrument basics.   In addition to being able to edit music tracks to create songs, you can learn how to play two versatile instruments.   (For a fee, you can go on and get popular stars to teach you about one of their favorite songs.).   As one of the commenters noted on the iPhone Blog livecast: “Garage Band Instructor beats Guitar Hero”.   And my lad has become an avid Guitar Hero player since he got it for Christmas, yet this may grab his attention.

The deeper meaning harkens back to something I’ve talked about before, the Transformation Economy.   Beyond wanting to have ‘experiences’, we can have experiences that transform us (in ways we value).   Now, I can’t say how compelling the experience with these tutorials will be (yet; I am strongly compelled to get the upgrade); despite Apple’s typically superior comprehension of user experience, there’s no reason to believe they get interactive learning experience yet (e.g they didn’t consult me :).

It’s a real opportunity, however, to have the new “intel inside ™” be “learning inside ™“.   Wouldn’t that be cool?   Too many products in my experience decouple learning, and consequently risk consumer dissatisfaction.   But a second step up from learning the product is learning new skills in the environment.

Sure, there were some other thrills for me: an iPhone app that allows you to control your Keynote preso (unfortunately, only by WiFi apparently), and having outlines in Pages (I write in outlines). I reckon I’ll be forking over for upgrades.   But the big ones were those performance support features, and the learning built into a consumer app.   I think the former is an interesting perspective on consumer value, and the latter could be a major market shift.   What do you think?

Thinking & Learning

by 4 Comments

Today I stumbled across two interesting articles.   Both talk about some relevant research on learning, and coincidentally, both are by folks I know.

An alumni bulletin mentioned research done by Hal Pashler (who was a new professor while I was a grad student; I was a teaching assistant for him, and he let me give my first lecture in his class), and talks about the intervals necessary for successful learning.   Will Thalheimer has done a great job publicizing how we need to space learning out, and this research was interesting for the the length of time recommended.

The study provided obscure information (true but unusual), with an initial study, subsequent re-study, and then a test, with varying intervals between the study periods, and between the second study and the test (up to a year).   The article implied the results for studying (no new news: cramming doesn’t work), but the implications for organizational learning.   The interesting result is the potential length of time between studying and performance.

“If you want to remember information for just a week, it is probably best if study sessions are spaced out over a day or two.   On the other hand, if you want to remember information for a year, it is best for learning to be spaced out over about a month.”

Extrapolating from the results, he added, “it seems plausible that whenever the goal is for someone to remember information over a lifetime, it is probably best for them to be re-exposed to it over a number of years.”

“The results imply,” said Pashler, “that instruction that packs a lot of learning into a short period is likely to be extremely inefficient, at least for remembering factual information.”

This latter isn’t new information, but does fly in the face of much formal training conducted on behalf of organizations.   We’ve got to stop massing our information in single event workshops, and starting preparing, reactivating, and reactivating again for anything that isn’t performed daily.

Moving from learning to thinking and doing (it’s not about learning after all), the second one concerns research done by Jonathan Schooler (who was a new faculty member where I was doing my post-doc; we published some work we did together with one of his PhD students).   Schooler’s work has been looking at day-dreaming, and found that it’s not a unitary thing, but actually has a couple of different modes, which differ in whether you’re not aware you’re daydreaming or are, instead, mindful of it.   The latter is to be preferred.

In the one where you’re aware you are daydreaming, you can mentally simulate situations and plan what might happen and how to respond, or review what did happen and consider alternatives.   This works for social situations as well as other forms of interactions.   And the results are beneficial: “people who engage in more daydreaming score higher on experimental measures of creativity, which require people to make a set of unusual connections.”

This is what I mean when I talk about reflection, and in the coming times of increasing change and decreasing knowledge half-life, the ability to be creative will increasingly be a competitive advantage.   So, as I’ve said before, do try to make time for reflection.   It works!

User-Centered System Design

by Leave a Comment

Back when I did my PhD, I was fortunate to be in Don Norman’s group when they were developing some of the primary design principles about designing for how people really think (“cognitive engineering”).   It focused on designing for the way people work (my twist was designing for how people learn).   I recently ranted about animated gifs, and I’ve got a similar catalyst here.

As background, people don’t do many things exactly the same way. We’re really bad at rote stuff, and instead are widely creative.   If you want information from someone, it might come in many different ways: if you asked how to get somewhere, you might get a map, a set of instructions, a series of landmarks, directions to MapQuest or GoogleMaps, etc.

When you’re designing a web site (or application) that asks for information, you can do several things.   The right thing to do is to have the backend processing be smart.   Put the burden on the system to tolerate user preferences.   For instance, I like that several different address book applications I’ve used accept phone numbers in several different ways: (925) 200-0881, 925.200.0881, 925-200-0881, etc, and remap it to their internal format.   You put it in in a different way, and it comes back in their canonical format.   That *might* drive you mad, but if you vary to widely, it’ll accept your variety just as you want.   Same with dates in many applications.   Great user experience.

Alternatively, if you want to put the burden on the human, provide guidance.   Next to the field, put either instructions (“9 digit starting with area code, no separators”), or better yet, an example (“925-200-0881”) next to the field. This puts the burden on the interface designer to communicate, and the user to adapt so is slightly less elegant, but may be more likely to lead to valid data.   However, it’s at least claer.

The worst case is not to tell the user (presumably not to spoil an elegant interface, cough cough), but to provide feedback if they get it wrong.   The advice above comes after you don’t follow their preferred format.   This is not proactive, but at least it’s helpful, at least if you think that there’s only a small chance they’ll choose any way but the way you expect.

So, of course, I just ran into a bad example where I was entering email addresses.   They had to be separated in the one field, so I could use: spaces, commas, or put them on separate lines.   I tried the latter, and was told it wasn’t in the right format, without telling me what the right format is!   Bad designer, no twinkie!

I’m sorry, but these things were known 15 years ago when I was teaching interface design.   And learning design typically includes some interface design. I mean, you want the learners to be acting, so you’ve got to design interactions, so you’re about usability design as well.   I do believe learning designers need an understanding of usability, even if development really should have all the right skill sets for the necessary jobs: that is a writer for prose, a graphic designer for look and feel, usability expert for interactions, instructional designer for the learning, audio, video, etc.   In the real world, however, you’re likely going to have to do some, or at least evaluate the toolset capabilities, so do get some exposure to basic usability.   A great start is Don Norman’s Design of Everyday Things.   Easy and fascinating read, and you’ll never look at the world in the same way again.

However you do it, be sensitive to aesthetics and usability.   You’ll be a better designer, even if you will be a wee bit less tolerant of bad design.   But I think that’s a good thing, or we’ll never move forward!

Formal learning & social networking

by Leave a Comment

After hearing Mark Oehlert and Brent Schlenker do such a great job on eLearning 2.0 at the Guild’s Summer Seminar, I got my own chance to talk about it to a corporate group, but with a twist.   Much of elearning 2.0 is about informal learning, but the organization was moving to using social networking tools to scaffold their move from face-to-face to more online learning.   So I was asked to talk about social networking and formal learning.

I started from the informal picture, however, both to introduce the 2.0 tools (their environment in particular had blogs, feeds, wikis, discussion boards, portals, and profiles), and to talk about some case studies of successes.   I led to the point that the informal participation has big upside potential, but you can’t spring it on them when they move beyond novice stage, and that wrapping it around the formal learning is a vehicle to help them become comfortable with the tools.   That is, the first reason to use social networking around formal learning is to make it part of the repertoire of the community.

I then segued to my second point, which is that social networking tools are better formal learning. To help make learning ‘stick’, to achieve our goals of retention and transfer, I have previously suggested that there are several activities that accomplish the memory elaboration, specifically connecting it to personal experience, to exercise and extend the conceptualization, and to apply the concepts to specific tasks.   Each of these can be accomplished well through social networking tools.

For example, blogs are really personal (or group) journals, and it’s easy to have a learning task to reflect a couple of times a week (for example) on what the current course means to you personally. It can be to explain things observed in the past, how it applies to current situations, or how it will better prepare people for the future.   It’s about re-activating and re-processing the information (Thiagi‘s exercises, for instance, are great at getting people to re-process information), but here adding in that connection with pre-existing personal context.   Of course, reading other learner’s blog posts, and commenting, can extend the value of the individual post.

Discussion boards are a great way to support extending conceptualizations.   Learners can be asked to post a response to a thought question (or even to have to create one), and comment constructively on someone else’s post. Well-written questions can ask learners to rethink the information in ways that the lecture and examples didn’t cover.     The point is to reprocess and elaborate the information.   Critically reflecting on another’s elaboration requires integrating their thinking with your own, for a real challenge in coming to grips with how they’ve interpreted it (and opportunity to refine one’s own understanding).

While simulations may be the ultimate learning application environment, another valuable tool are group assignments.   Having the learners respond to a challenge where, in teams, they create some written output collaboratively on a wiki is a great chance for them to have to express their understandings.   In doing so, by applying the concept to a context, they need to a shared understanding of the concept, which fosters greater comprehension.

Profiles, as well, can help individuals flesh out information about their fellow learners, and make more meaningful connections (as well as potentially track down useful mentors).   While not as rich as face to face interpersonal interaction, adding personal details helps extend their persona in ways that bring technology-mediated interaction closer to that personal exchange.

These few examples suggest how social networking not only facilitates informal learning, but can and should play a role in formal learning, for the sake of both formal and informal learning.   I’m finding it increasingly difficult to think about when formal learning shouldn’t include a social aspect (except the situation of ‘critical mass’ in totally asynchronous learning).

I’m still not convinced there’s an LMS that integrates social networking tools in a way that makes a smooth segue from formal to informal, though I know Mzinga’s making a stab at it.   You want to move to loose coupling, yet you want seamless integration.   Not sure what the reconciliation is of these.   Your thoughts?

What’s old is new again…

by Leave a Comment

When I was an undergraduate, I became excited about the connection between computers and learning.   My uni didn’t have a relevant degree back then, but I could design my own if I could get a faculty member to be my mentor.   I found Hugh Mehan and Jim Levin (very lucky on my part), and got to work on their experiment using email as an alternative to classroom discussion.   This was in 1978, and there was no internet, but we had the ARPAnet and off we went.

We found some interesting things, suchas that asynchronous responses were more thoughtful, compared to the IRE (inquire-response-evaluation) format of face to face.   And, messages could handle more than one topic at the same time. However, the overall dialog cycle took longer. Our results and some recommendations were published in 1983.

Imagine my surprise to hear an academic in an interview remark how he discovered that some folks who didn’t interact in the classroom, did find a voice in an online environment.   That was another of our findings, but only 20 years before this online learning expert got going.   I guess sometimes you can be too far ahead of the times…

That’s actually not to the academic’s discredit; it’s a reliable problem for interdisciplinary studies.   In HCI (interface design), you’d get someone from computer science opining about something new to them that was old hat in psychology, and vice versa.   Learning technology is the same way; bringing together techies, learning psychologists, and more, and it’s

I actually got quite a lot of mileage straddling the HCI and EdTech fields, as EdTech had lots to learn from some of the HCI work going on, such as iterative prototyping methods.   There was similarly valuable work going the other way, too, as I’d suggest that some of the more cutting edge psychological stuff (e.g. activity theory) was first explored by the ed community.

The problem is somewhat exacerbated by the different journals: there’s no one clearing house.   Back then we published in Instructional Science.   Now it might be BJET, or Education Technology, or ETRD.   The point being, it’s not easy to track what’s been done before.

So, what’s the point?   I reckon it’s to be eclectic and read broadly, look for inspiration everywhere you go, keep an open mind, go to lots of conferences (e.g. hope to see you at DevLearn) talk to lots of people, and actively looking for the application potential of new ideas.   At least it’s an exciting place to play!

Design: final heuristics

by 2 Comments

Part 4 of the 4 part series:

Here‘re the final suite of heuristics I came up with many years ago as a result of looking at our design process and the barriers our cognitive architecture can put in our own way.

Full Spectrum Design: One of the most insidious problems observed in educational multimedia is a tendency to incorporate all the solution into the computer.   The system will be the repository of all the text, sound, graphics, etc, and the instruction.   Unfortunately, this does not properly reflect what’s known about reading text on screen and the role of the teacher.   In conjunction with the No Limits Analysis, another way to get the best design is to consider the full spectrum of media, particularly considering delivering text on paper, having the instruction accomplished by an instructor, etc.   The proper use of the term multimedia is to consider all the available media and their use and to distribute the instructional task across all of them.

No Limits Analysis: After assembling a team, the first step in the design process is analysis, and an important component is proper information gathering to ensure that all relevant possible sources of inspiration have been considered.   However, before we consider what others have done in the same, we should see what we come up with when we think as if there were no limits.   This occurs after the pedagogical problem has been identified but before other examples are considered.   The step is to consider how the problem would be addressed if there were no technological limitations, as if anything could be accomplished as if by magic. Arthur C. Clarke said “any truly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”, and we‘re really at the stage where the barriers are our imaginations, not the technology.   So stop and think what an ideal solution would be.   You may not be able to achieve what you imagine, but you certainly can‘t if you don‘t identify that option, and you‘ll prematurely limit the solution space.

Kitchen Sink Analysis: After the No Limits Analysis, comes the systematic consideration of other corners of the design space or other relevant prototypes for modification.   Lewis & Reiman suggested that “plagiarism” is an appropriate design strategy (as far as your lawyers would let you, as they cautioned), where ideas are lifted from existing designs rather than reinventing the wheel.   An expansion to this concept is to not only look at what others have done but to also consider how instruction might proceeded without computer support, what theory suggests as an approach, etc.   In short, the suggestion is to exhaustively search all potential sources of input into the design process, including the proverbial ‘kitchen sink’.   This process is both to help populate the design space and discover all constraints.

And let me add one other that I didn‘t explicitly include before:
Lateral input:   Research on brainstorming and creativity (cf D Bono), has shown that besides being systematic and covering all the known or plausible solutions, lateral thinking is valuable. After you‘ve been exhaustive within the box, find ways to get ‘outside the box‘.   Use random inspirations: play a game, doodle, get some random input!   Get silly!   It may not be politically correct anymore, but back when I worked for a learning game company, the CEO (hi, Sky!), used to bring in pizza and beer on Friday afternoon and have some idea sessions!   There are lots of tools and approaches, just make sure you make some concerted effort here.

OK, that‘s it for this series on design.   I hope these past few posts give you some useful guidance or ideas.   I welcome your own!

First: https://blog.learnlets.com/2008/09/design-design-as-search/

Second: https://blog.learnlets.com/2008/09/design-our-barriers/

Third: https://blog.learnlets.com/2008/09/design-the-first-heuristics/

Design: the first heuristics

by Leave a Comment

Part 3 of a 4 part series:

We talked previously about our cognitive limitations.   Here I list a subset of the heuristics I‘ve discovered across design practices and from experience.   I‘m sure you‘ll find some that seem obvious, and have others of your own. However, I still see instances where these principles would have helped, so I‘m tossing them out there just in case.

Team Design: One problem is covering all the required areas of expertise.   As was discovered in the early days of multimedia, designers should recognize and acknowledge the spectrum of talent required to properly develop a project.   In particular, there should be expertise on the team for the content area, the educational design, the interface design, the programming environment, and each media area to be used.   The management style has to allow the contributions of these experts to the design, and to resolve any fundamental contradictions only upon assessment of each point of view.   The saying is that the room is smarter than the smartest person in the room, but my caveat is that is only true if you manage the process right.   But diversity helps, and you want to find a way to involve diverse viewpoints early on, so ensure a suite of talents on the design team.

Egoless Design: Hand in hand with the above is the requirement for egoless design.   Each team member has to feel comfortable contributing to the overall design and willing to offer and receive constructive criticism.   Egoless programming was the source of this approach, but it holds true fo all group endeavors. The members have to recognize and respect the contributions of each other.   Team leaders can facilitate this by displaying the same quality themselves.   For instance, the opportunity for deliberately silly ideas can support a willingness to take risks.   There should be explicit discussions of process as well as product, as this is likely to prove valuable in not only leading to a high quality of output but in leading to improved capabilities of the team members.

3 Strategies Design: While creativity in the design process can contribute to selecting a good design, all designs will benefit from testing and refinement of the design.   Three strategies from the field of ‘user-centered design’ can be used to characterize an appropriate approach.   This process is captured in the notion of iterative, formative, and situated design, where successive iterations of the design are tested with real data and real users and the results are used to further inform the design process.   It has been reliably demonstrated that single passes at design fail for reasons specifically related to lack of appropriate testing.   In short, the waterfall approach doesn‘t work.   We‘ll find questions we can‘t answer on the basis of existing information and we‘ll have differing opinions. Prototype and test!   Also…

(the Double) Double P’s: Once some designs are generated, it is necessary to start producing limited-capability versions, or prototypes (different from the use of the term for the evolutionary design model), for testing to feed back into the design process.   The prototypes that are created should be of increasing fidelity, but it is tempting to start prototyping them on the computer   However, this can lead to functional fixedness.   A colleague many years ago had a rule for his team that no programming should proceed until a complete ‘storyboard’ has been completed on paper.   This leads to a prescription for the Double P’s: Postponing Programming and Preferring Paper.   User experience work has found that paper can be extremely valuable for experimenting, prototyping, and testing.   Get your answers before you spend lots of money and time!

OK, one more list of heuristics coming up.   And I look forward to yours and your feedback.

First: https://blog.learnlets.com/2008/09/design-design-as-search/

Second: https://blog.learnlets.com/2008/09/design-our-barriers/

Fourth: https://blog.learnlets.com/2008/09/design-final-heuristics/  

Design: our barriers

by Leave a Comment

Part 2 of a 4 part series:

Cognitive psychology has identified certain characteristics of our brains. When it comes to problem solving, (and we can think of design as problem-solving as well as search), we have certain behaviors that predispose us to certain types of solutions (in other words, prematurely limiting our search space). These include functional fixedness, set-effects, premature evaluation, and, not too surprisingly, social issues.

Functional fixedness is really just about not seeing new applications of a tool.   This can be seen when designers are familiar with a particular implementation tool or environment. The designs then tend to resemble what is easy to do with that tool (the old “when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail”).   Alternatively, they may push the tool beyond it‘s effective range trying to accomplish a particular outcome.   If the tool is the optimal one for the job this is not a problem, but in other cases the tool is familiar and so it is used despite a lack of relevance.   Even in robust design environments, projects often resemble what is easy to implement in that environment, not what the analysis would indicate.

Set effects are solving new problems in ways appropriate for previous problems, whether or not that‘s appropriate now.   In this approach, subjects who had solved several prior problems in a particular way would solve a new problem in that well-practiced way.   However, subjects who had not had that prior experience would find the simpler solution to the problem.   What was identified as “set effects” manifests itself in designers whose new solutions resemble prior solutions even when the old solutions are inappropriate.   While it is true that the consistency produced from set effects is often beneficial, that should be a conscious decision and not the accidental outcome of limitations of the designer or the design process.

Premature evaluation is where problem-solvers will settle on a solution before all possibilities have been considered.   In creativity, one of the hurdles has been when problem-solvers will pursue the first solution path that presents itself rather than delay solution while considering other potential solution paths that might be more effective.   The cognitive overhead in retaining a meta-level of strategy that considers multiple solution paths is often overwhelmed in the efforts to consider all the factors in the problem itself.   Considerable practice can be required to develop good strategic maintenance of strategies as well as solution.

A final set of problems in problem-solving are the social ones: the difficulty of publicly suggesting an idea that may not be accepted, the difficulty in sharing an idea that may not get credited, the difficulty in offering help due to a perception that it may be an intrusion or unwelcome, or the difficulty in accepting help from others whether to not be a burden or to resent intrusion.   Another set of social problems have to do with different domains of expertise.   Most learning technology projects these days require multiple skill sets: writing, media production, software engineering, learning design, management, etc.   Who gets listened to? How do you coordinate this?

I suspect you recognize these problems, but of course the issue is what to do. Coming up in the next two posts: Team Design, Egoless Design, No Limits Analysis, ‘Kitchen Sink’ Analysis, Systematic Creativity, 3 Strategy Design, the (double) Double P’s, and Full Spectrum Design.   What are your ideas?

First: https://blog.learnlets.com/2008/09/design-design-as-search/

Third: https://blog.learnlets.com/2008/09/design-the-first-heuristics/

Fourth: https://blog.learnlets.com/2008/09/design-final-heuristics/  

Design: design as search

by Leave a Comment

A four-part series on design, barriers, and some heuristics to improve outcomes:

I found my passion in learning technology.   I took most of a computer science degree (after flirting with biology, and…) before designing my own major combining CS with education.   I went back to grad school to learn a lot about cognition and learning.   I took a rather eclectic approach, going beyond cognitive approaches to include behavioral approaches, instructional design, social learning theories, constructivist learning theories, even machine learning.   (I continue that today.)

As I took very much an ‘applied‘ approach (not doing pure research, but interpreting research to meet real problems, now known as “design-based research” in the edtech field, but close to the more general ‘action research‘), and was teaching interaction design, I started looking at design processes in that same eclectic way. (NB: I‘ve also tracked ‘engagement‘, as those who‘ve read the book or heard me speak on games know).   I looked at interface design processes, and instructional design processes, heck, I looked at architectural, industrial, engineering, and graphic design processes. And I realized some things that I‘ve talked about in various places but haven‘t written about for over 10 years, and yet I think are still relevant.   I‘m going to talk here about design, our cognitive (and other) barriers to design, and my plan is to subsequently post about a suite of heuristics I‘ve come up with to minimize the consequences of those barriers.

Design can be characterized as a search of a ‘solution‘ space. Think of all the possible solutions as this n-dimensional space or cloud, and outside the cloud are designs that wouldn‘t solve the problem, like the old approach we were using; inside the cloud are possible solutions).   Sometimes we can evolve an existing design incrementally to solve the problem, and sometimes we combine previous solutions to create a new one (or so some theories say).   Another way to think about it is we have this infinite solution space, and then we start putting in constraints that limit the space (must cost less than $50K, must be doable in six weeks, must work in our technical environment, etc).   Constraints are actually good, as they limit the space we have to search.   However, too often when we consider all the constraints, we‘ve just made the space the null set; we‘ve excluded any solution. Then we have to relax constraints: reduce scope, increase budget, etc.

One of the problems is prematurely limiting our search. It turns out that our cognitive architecture has biases that may limit our search long before we consciously look at our options.   We may only search a limited space nearby our prior experience, and only achieve what‘s know in search as a ‘local maximum‘, as a good solution for part of the space but not the best solution overall (a ‘global maximum‘). We need to know the barriers, and then propose solutions around those barriers.   Coming up: Functional Fixedness, Set-Effects, Premature Evaluation, and the ever-dreaded Social issues.   Stay tuned!

Second: https://blog.learnlets.com/2008/09/design-our-barriers/

Third: https://blog.learnlets.com/2008/09/design-the-first-heuristics/

Fourth: https://blog.learnlets.com/2008/09/design-final-heuristics/  

Chromed Comics

by Leave a Comment

The web is an interesting place, and Google is an interesting player.   They’re just announcing their new browser, Chrome, which uses the same WebKit engine as Safari (as opposed to Firefox’s Gecko engine).   The challenge is to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (which is raising new anti-trust issues with the announcement that once you install it, you may not be able to remove it), but at the same time it’s also challenging Apple and Mozilla (owners of Safari and Firefox, respectively) with whom they’ve had a pretty good relationship.   Of course, Google’s Android OS for mobile phones also challenges Apple’s Mac OS X for the iPhone.   The point being that there are times when it’s hard to decide who’s doing what to who!

Which isn’t to say that Chrome isn’t a compelling vision, and the way they chose to reveal this vision is with a comic!   They got Scott McCloud (author of the must-read Understanding Comics) to write/draw it, and he clearly had access to folks who understood the underpinning ideas and manages to communicate them.     Granted, it helps if you understand the differences between threads and processes, but it really does help illuminate the underlying ideas.

Two lessons:

1. you’ve got to stay on top of the changes in the web space: the arguments for the new technical implementation may not be important to you (they are, but it’s about performance and if you’re not a mega-surfer yet you won’t really notice), but Google’s weight behind it is important from a market perspective.

2. Comics are an underused communication tool with great power.   We’re looking at them for a project we’re working on, fortunately the client’s enthused.   Start considering how you might employ them.