On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 10:09:00AM +0200, jumanji wrote:
> > > From: "Byron A Jeff" <byron@CC.GATECH.EDU>
>
> > I saw in a future post of your that you felt that you put everything you
> needed
> > to on the table. I just haven't had an oppotunity to respond to this post.
> > If you have time, I'd like to continue the discussion.
>
> I kinda felt like that, but after reading this I still have to clear up a
> few things I think :)
> Maybe it is because I'm not too good in explaining with words & should I
> make a drawing.

No. your words are fine. Perfectly clear. Like I said you've described a
technologically sound system. This is really a psychology discussion now.

> (Call it a professional mutation, I make drawings for a living :)
> I don't know if it is appropriate to send binaries to the PIClist, I don't
> have any site where to put them otherwise.

E-mail it to me. I'll put it up on my site and post the URL.

>
> > What I'd like to further discuss are the differences in the goals and
> > philosophies of each approach. My thesis is that you primary list of
> goals:
> > simple interconnected modules that facilitates a lower barrier to entry on
> > a per project basis, works well for seasoned designers.
>
> a system that is easy for learning at first & which can easyly be ported to
> own new projects & experiments.

Thanks for clarifying. I've been arguing that the first goal cannot be
achieved as you describe it.

>
> >However that from
> > both a novice and support standpoint that the system is more complicated.
> > I will do my best to both sitck to the point and keep it short.
>
> I don't agree, it's a matter of how you bring it to them. If the beginner is
> interested in LEARNING,
> you advise him to get the EDU (PICbase plugged in) this is ONE physical
> object.

I know that it sounds funny, but what exactly are we do to with a beginner that
isn't interested in learning? It's almost like giving a teenager the choice
to learn how to drive in the family sedan or in a hot rod sportscar. We know
which one they'll choose, however it's probably not the right choice.

I think that Brenden's suggestion of simply not presenting it as an option
to novices has merit.

>
> > > I don't see why my concept would obstruct the persuit of standardisation
> :)
> > It does obstruct because in your system all that's required is the
> PICbase.
>
> For the beginner it is not (edu only available with PICbase onboard)

I'm going to virtually come back to this one because I think I addressed it
below...

OK I'm back from the bottom of the thread. I've yet to see a compelling
argument that will convince a novice user that purchasing the entire
package is much better than just purchasing a PICbase component separately
and starting with it. As Geert pointed out below it's a marketing problem...

>
> > The very fact that the system is modular means that other than the
> PICbase.
> > clever or useful they are, there would be a barrier to standardization
> > precisely because choices are available.
>
> ? I think you are mixing up a few definitions of terms,
> Modular = modular coz it is built with standard parts (they cannot run
> standalone, but are to offer x amount of functions) otherwise I'd call it
> 'design from scratch'

That's the same definition I use. I'm just arguing that since a novice gets to
choose which pieces they want to use, that be definition there can be no
standardization beyond the PICbase.

>
> > Here's the problem. Novice is presented with two choices: PICbase for $20
> or
> > PICbase + Designer for say $100. Which do they choose?
>
> The novice should be presented with DOCUMENTED choices :)

It doesn't matter. Documentation or not many people feel that if they can get
into the game cheaper that they'll be better off. It's exactly the same
argument that you've been presenting here: Why spend an extra $80 for stuff
that I may not actually use?

> At first he chooses the edu1 board which is not sold without a PICbase
> plugged in.

I understand. But what exactly do we present to a novice as an argument to
get them to understand that initially that the standard I/O board (I'm still
resisting EDU because it implies that it isn't useful for production
development) isn't optional. I understand that it's a single unit. But anyone
reading the description will quickly realize that it consists of two separate
components (PICbase + standard I/O board) that are in the same package and
that they can get a PICbase by itself. Remember I'm not talking technology
at this point, just psychology. So how to we convine them that they really
need to start with the whole package and not just the PICbase component?

> By the time he wants to move on, his knowledge will be sufficient (after the
> courses on the edu) to realise
> that the parts are complementary. (If not, either he's a very lousy student
> or his teachers are ;)) ; or he has obtained it from
> an undocumented source (black market ? ;) / second hand market, but that
> risk exsist for anything bought 2ndH without investigating first)

Then we're in agreement if we can convince novices to buy the entire package
at the beginning.

>
> > [..as another slip emerges from the Analogy Machine] It's the difference
> > between and entire computer and just a CPU. The CPU is an essential
> component
> > to an entire computer, and is cheaper than an entire computer. However it
> > isn't sufficient.
> > This isn't an issue except for the fact that a novice will probably be
> unclear
> > of the distinction.
>
> Unless you put this excellent comparison in the descriptions of the
> PBK/PICbase, where it is sold. :)

See. That's why I post. Sometimes it takes getting wapped over the head with
the obvious to realize the obvious. Thanks for pointing that out.

>
> > That's not it. It's imminently buildable. It's extremely useful. I'm only
> > speaking to supportability. As the project's supports we'll run into the
> > common situation with modularized components...
>
> You are thinking over-modularised again :) the possibilities are limited.
> (you cannot plug just anything wherever you see it fit)

Actually you can. There's nothing that will prevent someone from attaching
any type of board to the PICbase. This is a good thing.

> > ...Same idea here. A project with a PICbase doesn't work for a novice
> designer.
> > Where's the finger going to be pointed? I mean the PICbase was supposed to
> > facilitate getting my project going. But because of one misplaced or
> missing
> > wire on the designers own wired board it doesn't happen to work. But you'd
> > best believe we'd get a question or a report faster than your head could
> > spin.
>
> AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAHAHAHA !!!!! :))))
> But I can be pretty damn sure that the problem is NOT in the PICbase
> circuitry !! (normally)
> (savesmehowmanyhours ? :)

Not nearly as many as if they had more of the standardized hardware.

>
> > No because you make it optional. And while that's fine, absolutely fine,
> > for someone who knows how the system works, it can be a novice's worst
> > nightmare because while it gives the impression of being a complete unit,
> > it in fact is imcomplete.
>
> No, no, it *is* complete :) see below.
>
> >Then compared to something more complete, like
> > the Designer, it seems like a bargain... at first.
>
> 'Designer' sounds to me something you can put components on to create your
> own project,

It'll have a breadboard so that you can throw your own stuff on it. It'll have
some of the same support issues. However by widening the base a bit, there
will be a lot less of the common mistakes that occur.

> Would you thing a novice would go for that, or would he try to LEARN the
> stuff first?
> (over-ambition of novices not taken into account then heh)

Actually it doesn't really matter just a long as everyone is operating from
the same default processor-I/O base. Because then when a problem occurs
and a question asked, many folks will have that same wider processor-I/O base
on which to test the issue and be able to give back feedback that they know
should work. It limits the number of support variables.

I live with this support issue with my cable modem. My provider only supports
a single Windows or Mac machine connected directly to the cable modem box.
Other OSs (such as Linux which I use) or network configurations (like LinkSys
routers) are not supported directly. They work fine with the system, but when
there's a problem I can't call and say "My Linux box cannot get connected to
the network." What happens is that since that's an unknown component in their
system the first reaction is always "Well your Linux box must be the problem."
That was the case one and exactly one time. Each and every other time it has
in fact been a problem with some part of their network.

Now I'm a knowlegable, advanced user. I know how to translate their commands
for Windows "Click on the Release Button, then click  on Renew..." into
equivalent commands on my machine... and I wound't have it any other way
because they would do a worse job trying to support my system than I can do
myself.

But the flip side of this is that I'd would never ever recommend that a novice
user use anything outside of their support system without some assistance.

I'm just trying to apply the same system here. Simplify support by limiting
options.

>
> > > I only gave examples of what could be on a board, the details are up to
> > > you,(I don't know which stuff is of equal level) its not that I have in
> mind
> > > stuff like 1 board with 6potmeters; 1 board with 3serial connectors;
> another
> > > board with with 13LEDs & a button etc etc..
> > I know. The only problem is that everything, absolutely everything, is
> > optional. Therefore there's no consensus as to what's shared.
>
> Nope, see bottom.
>
> > At the risk of sounding repetitive, this is a beautiful environment for
> the
> > intermediate or experienced designer who understands that it's simply a
> > plug in component, a cog in the machine. But I have misgivings about how
> to
> > present such a system to folks walking in off the street as it were.
>
> Marketing & advertising are professions on their own :)

And that are exactly the disciplines that come to bear here...

>
> > > > then I could be assured that anyone that had
> > > > a Designer could run my project out of the box.
> > > You still could :)
>
> > No. Everything in your system is optional.
>
> nope :)

I just can't wait to see this...

>
> > > Well then, don't think about profit for the manufacturer, think about
> cost
> > > reduction for the enduser :)
>
> > And a loss of collective value for the community.
>
> ?

If we pare down the standard system to the PICbase in order to save the end
user from investing some extra money, it'll weaken the overall value of the
system for everyone.

>
> > But that's why our proposed projects are orthogonal and complementary.
> > The Designer can easily be done with a PICbase at its core. I don't have
> > any techological problem with that. The Designer only tangentially touches
> > upon the issue of project migration while the PICbase addresses it
> solidly.
> > The Designer provides a foundation for design and support that the PICbase
> > omits. They'll do very well together. The problem is how to get across the
> > point to novices that the Designer offers them significant value. Here's a
> > sample conversation to illustrate:

> > NU (New User): I just heard about the new PICLIST design system. I
> purchased
> > a PICbase for $20. How do I hook up an LCD to it?
>
> PL: We are sorry about our failure to make you clear that as a NU, you
> should have gotten the EDU1
> On the EDU1 header 3 is to connect the LCD, take your EDU1manual to your
> local supplier, inthere are the correct specs for which LCD can be fit on
> EDU1.
>
> > And so forth and so on. While the PICbase is standard, everything else is
> > so variable that there are any number of failure points along the way.
>
> No, no, no :))) In a true modular design (look at doepfer modular synths, or
> even software modular systems (VAZ, Nord modular) You can only select from
> standard parts (modules)

But won't that affect the flexibility that you're searching for? The whole
point of the PICbase was that it could be attached to anything in a multitude
of designs. And that's exactly what new users will try to do in order to save
some money. Why should I have to purchase your LCD module when I have a old
LCD sitting my drawer?

>
> In its ultimate simple design, there are but 3 possible things to buy:
> EDU1 (*with* PICbase plugged in)
> DEV1 (PICbase optional)   (=your designer, I'd say)
> PICbase.
>
> I think in your idea, EDU1&DEV1 are 1&the same thing, but would you want
> that bunch of educational stuff (of which some stuff you don't need &
> perhaps even obstructs your new design, on your designer ?

I dropped the educational argument about 10 posts ago. The educational angle
has nothing to do with the technology or the I/O devices we've been talking
about. It only has to do with the software and documentation that's presented
along with the hardware. So in short if you do the CD/online tutorials it's
educational, however if you simply design/build new projects, it's not. But
the hardware doesn't change based on the usage. It's the same standard set of
hardware whether or not you're using it as a learning station or as a design
station. That's why I've objected to the argument that there's this education
only track of hardware that's unnecessary and useless for designers.

Finally what utility is there in having the PICbase optional?

>
> Depending on how much stuff you want to put on EDU1, there perhaps could be
> EDU2 in the future, for extended courses perhaps, (this is up to the PBK
> ppl, its details :)

The course/tutorial material isn't tied to specific educational hardware. The
course/tutorial material is tied to the standard base processor-I/O hardware
that everyone will have.

>
> > So in the end the question is not which system to use as both have their
> > applications. The issue is how to get the primary target audience,
> newcomers,
> > to come on board with the full program, the Designer, as opposed to its
> > core modular component, the PICbase.
>
> again, it's up to the ppl offering it, like this:
>
> NOTE TO BEGINNERS: BUY THE ***EDU1*** ! :) (dammit!, LOL)

Why? It costs more and I can get started with just a PICbase.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads