What do you think of ShowMeDo
malkocb at gmail.com
Wed Apr 29 13:59:37 CEST 2009
I do not get why the level of criticism is rising so high in some of
I have nothing to say about more "philosophical" aspects of the issue
but would like to comment from a more pragmatic point of view:
I am completely happy with the *structure* of site (*visually* it may
get better, I agree): You choose your topic, go to the relevant page,
select among the video series and start watching at anyone video (ie
any level) you want. I think those of you criticising may be in some
kind of rush hence not being able to get this "structure". Or maybe
visual hints are more important than I think.
And you can do nothing about the content being too "simple". But me
personally I learned something more than None (see eg blender
tutorials). You should read the exlanations put below the videos more
I did not get any broken link (and I visited quite a few videos), or
login requirement. Am I talking about another site?
A last, more subjective, comment: I think we must be more constructive
in our criticisms.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Jeremiah Dodds
<jeremiah.dodds at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Banibrata Dutta <banibrata.dutta at gmail.com>
>> Personally, I faced some despair with a large number of the free
>> ShowMeDo tutorials, example the one on WxPython, where for the first 4
>> free tutorials, the tutor hardly progresses to any bit of programming,
>> and what is demonstrated was too basic, too slow - to hold my
> I must agree here. I'll add that the vast majority of video tutorials or
> lectures that I've seen are way too slow to hold my interest, with the
> exception of google tech talks, and stuff like OCW from MIT. (These are at
> http://research.google.com/video.html and
> http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm respectively).
> However, I do really like the idea of showmedo, especially for people who
> like learning through not-so-dense video on the introductory level. I
> haven't been incredibly impressed with the quality of the free stuff there
> either, but I also haven't looked at any of the paid stuff. I don't think
> that it's safe to assume that it's of a substantially higher quality.
More information about the Python-list