<DIV><BR>From: Andre Roberge <ANDRE.ROBERGE@GMAIL.COM><BR>> When I look at Logowiki, I think "this is<BR>> fantastic..." ... and then get the impression that its purpose <BR>> is just<BR>> to amaze me <snip></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Don't know how much was intended, but this touching on </DIV>
<DIV>a lot to me.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is too easy to amaze, too hard to resist doing so.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I would want educational software for children, in particular, to go out</DIV>
<DIV>of its way to not amaze, not rely on the ability to create magic as</DIV>
<DIV>its point of engagement. *Not* be immersive.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>But that is not where things have been, and they seem to be going further</DIV>
<DIV>in a direction away from it. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bets being off if, for example, we are teaching something like</DIV>
<DIV>Panda3d, where the *subject matter* is that magic.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>This implies, among other things, that we have had the technological</DIV>
<DIV>capability to approach this problem for some time, and to the extent</DIV>
<DIV>that it is not "solved", it is for reasons other than that we haven't had the bits and bytes</DIV>
<DIV>configured just right, or enough accelerator cards, or folks are scared and </DIV>
<DIV>resistant to change.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But of course I don't really understand the problem. If computers do not</DIV>
<DIV>have a major contribution to make to the education of children....so be it.</DIV>
<DIV>Who promised us it must be otherwise, and when.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Art</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>