> Another element which was unfortunate is that the people standing closer
> to the back of the room couldn't read any code except things that were in
> a huge font. So as the screens became filled people who couldn't read what
> was being displayed started to lose interest (_my_ observation, from about
> 3/4 of the distance from the stage and to the right. I also had difficulty
> reading the code because of the combination of poor lighting, small fonts
> and a weak beamer).
I think a livecoding performance _is_ boring if people can't read the
code, or at least - if it's indistinguishable by the audience from a
normal laptop performance, it loses most of it's significance (for me).
It's even worse if the code is hard to read - obviously in cases like this
it is often due to circumstances, but it can give audiences a bad
impression. I feel that only making it vaguely readable can been seen as
saying "there is no point, as you lesser people wouldn't understand it
anyway". I think it's a very quick way of making people much less
interested in what you are doing.
So just restating what I always say I suppose, but making things clear is
key to increasing interest in livecoding imho.
cheers,
dave
Received on Mon Feb 25 2008 - 11:51:20 GMT