In Response

In case you were not aware, the federal Industry Committee attempted to insert some outrageous amendments to Bill C-27, which was the "anti-spam" bill last week. The proposed amendments will give copyright groups and the telcos the right to install spyware on your computer and to remove programs without your knowledge OR permission as a means to "monitor and enforce copyright issues" (quick summary). Scary thought huh? Good thing the public shot it down.

Anyways, I had to write a letter to the MP expressing my concerns as a part of the journal assignment for my Contemporary Issues course. I'm going to share it with you and hope you will write to your MP about this as well. If we don't make enough noise, I fear the big corporations are eventually going to get their way...

---

I have lived in the ________ for over 5 years. I am a student currently studying interactive design in Capilano University. The future direction of computer privacy and the Internet is a concern in my field.

Last week, I read some rather alarming articles online (e.g. http://rabble.ca/babble/national-news/bill-c-27-anti-spam-or-pro-spyware#) regarding to the last minute proposed amendments to Bill C-27. The articles suggested these amendments may have been drafted by copyright and telecom lobbyists and would seriously violate our privacy rights on personal computers.

Some of these offensive provisions motioned include:

• Excluding Section 7(1)(b) from Bill C-27
• Allowing private sector surveillance to capture user information on computers without user knowledge or consent
• Permitting telecom providers to install and remove computer programs from personal computers without explicit user consent.

Essentially, these amendments would have given the copyright lobby and the telecoms the green light to install spyware, monitor all traffic to/from and access all data stored on our personal computers. Digital information is no different than physical property. These amendments would have been completely against our rights outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am very relieved to hear that the motion has been dropped this week.

As a Canadian, I am proud of our government’s involvement in the past in protecting the privacy rights of all citizens. The recent changes in Facebook’s privacy policies in response to the recommendations provided by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is one such example. I hope the Federal Government will continue to defend our rights and freedoms regardless of which party is leading parliament.

Thank you for hearing me out.

So I was scanning through popular bookmarks on Delicious and I came across this site: The fun theory. (Strangely enough the title says Thefuntheory.com but the site url isn't that...)

They have youtube videos on the front page about experiments they did of how making things fun can lead to proper/healthy choices.

Here's one:

In the vid, they were trying to get more people to walk up the stairs by turning the staircase into a giant keyboard that makes music when you step on it. And they see a large increase in the number using the stairs compared to the escalator. Now my question is, is it so much "fun" that was driving the exercise or was it just novelty? I suspect after a couple of weeks, people will end up reverting back to the escalator. Well except for the little kids who frankly don't really need all that much additional exercise if they have proper playtime. Of course you can say novelty is a part of what makes it fun. Play something for too long and you can bored with it... hence no fun. If this is the case, does it mean we should turn life into a playground? Or perhaps like video games, virtual worlds or like that iPhone app "Pocket God" where we add something new and different every week/month to keep people constantly engaged in discovery?

Or mayhaps not? As mentioned in The Design of Everyday Things by Donald Norman (see lecture on YouTube here), everyday activities should be simple and be done automatically without thinking. There's too much in our lives that do require diligence. We simply don't have that much energy to pay attention to everything. So should we construct more puzzles in the environment? How much engagement is too much and becomes annoyances?

Perhaps we can have the best of both worlds. Creating an enriched "fun" environment that you can opt in or ignore. Very much like the giant keyboard staircase. You can choose to ignore the noise and just walk up... or if you have the time, spend a moment enjoying it. Your thoughts?

This is my first week in the Interactive Design program at Capilano. I thought I'll share some of the things I learned each week on the blog. Hopefully I'll remember to keep updating.

So, week one was orientation and system orientation (aka system setup/configuration). I think the most important one was backing up the system.


Backing up Mac OS X partition

• cannot make disk image of drive while system is running (mounted)
• Need another computer to create disc image (or operate from another bootable partition)

Option 1 (Boot from 2nd computer)

1. Shut down system to be backed up
2. Connect to second computer using FireWire or USB
3. Hold down "T" and turn on computer 1. Continue holding down key until firewire symbol appears on screen. (Now in "target" disc mode)
4. Drive partitions should show up as mounted discs on 2nd computer
5. Start up DIsk Utility (ensure app on operating computer is used, use app menu instead of spotlight)
6. UNMOUNT firewire Mac OSX partition (if error occurs, check to see if you're using disc utility on the booted partition.)
7. Create disc image from unmounted partition, save into firewire DATA partition or external harddrive.
8. Estimated image size 2.6-3.0GB?

Option 2 (Booting from alternate partition)

1. Restart computer using alternate partition (Hold down "option" and turn on computer to select partition or use STARTUP DISK on System Preferences to choose partition and restart computer)
2. Start up DIsc Utility (ensure app on the running partition (spare) is used, use app menu instead of spotlight)
3. UNMOUNT Mac OSX partition
4. Create disc image from unmounted partition, save into DATA partition or external harddrive.

Restoring back up from disk image

• Restore onto any detectable device (partition on same computer, USB or firewire connected harddrives, USB keys etc)
• WARNING - restoring from disk image will completely wipe destination partition/drive

1. Open Disk Utility
2. Click on disk to restore (e.g. spare)
3. Select restore from disk image
4. Source <- locate disk image location (/data/...)
5. Destination <- DRAG disk icon (e.g. spare) from left sidebar into box
6. Run restore (will take ~30 min?)

I wrote this about two weeks ago on my blog in typologycentral after a discussion there on science and statistics. I thought to share the post here with you so all that writing doesn't go to waste. I'm not aware of all that many examples online explaining what statistical testing entails and how it works in layman terms.

(Side note: You'll find I use a particular style of humor in my posts on the forum)

The one-sample student's t-test (an example)

The most basic T-test around... what it does is compare a sample of a presumable sub-population to a well defined main population. To state it more clearly, does this new group belong in the bigger group? Let's make this be about.... MONKEYS.

You know that the googly-eyed monkeys have a mean weight of (they weight on average) 5 kg and their weights follow a normal (bell-curve) distribution with a standard deviation of ummm 1/2 kg.


Normal (bell-curve) distribution

Now some crazy person went exploring one day and found on an island a bunch of monkeys that looks suspiciously like googly-eyed monkeys. Now the question is are these island monkeys in fact googly-eyed monkeys? Well since we know lots about how much monkeys weight... let's compare their weights.

Well we know weights of googly-eyed monkeys follow a normal distribution with a mean of 5 kg and a standard deviation of 1/2 kg... so if the island monkeys also have a population mean of 5 kg and a standard deviation of 1/2 kg... Then island monkeys are googly-eyed monkeys (or at least they weigh the same as googly-eyed monkeys).

You can visualize this as 2 bell-shaped distribution curves. One for googly-eyes and the other for island monkeys. If they overlap completely, then they're the same aren't they? (Yes I realize at this point I drifted away from the true 1-sample T-test since you only need to know true population mean and true population standard deviation is not used in calculations... after the fact realization.)

Now I don't know about you, but monkeys are hard to catch... and I'm lazy. So there's no way I'm going to try shooting darts at every single monkey on to island (no matter how fun it is to try) in order to weigh all the darn things.

So, we're just going to catch and weight a small sample of monkeys and assume they are representative of the island population. Then use statistics compare the two.

According to the "rules" or basic premise of statistics... you have to meet these criteria in order to perform a T-test.

1. measured variable is parametric and normally distributed (monkey weight distribution CHECKED)
2. true population mean is known (googly-eyed monkeys weight 5kg CHECKED)
3. randomized sampling, all the monkeys on the island must have an equal chance of being selected (I guess I'll just have to have a magic tranquilizer gun or something... in real life though, we just use an approximately random sampling method)
4. all samples must be made independently, that is the weight of one monkey should not affect the weight of the other (I guess we'll have to make sure no monkey steals food from another one huh? For all intents and purposes though, this just means taking one and only sample from each animal. No double dipping!)

In most cases, statistics that go wrong happens because criteria for the particular test was not satisfied... It's surprising how often people plug stuff into a program and automatically assume whatever it spits back out in correct. // end rant

Okay, once we've met all the criteria, we start with defining our hypothesis. (Most people in science don't state these things explicitly... statisticians do though)

Let,
googly-eyed population mean weight (mu) = 5 kg
island monkey sample mean weight = X bar

Null hypothesis
Ho: mu = X bar (mean weight of googly-eyes = mean weight from island monkey)
Ha: mu =/= X bar (mean weight of island monkeys is not the same as mean weight of googly-eyes)
confidence level (alpha) = 5% (we will assume something that can only occur by chance 5% of the time as likely not from the same population, arbitrary defined value.)

Aside on confidence level:
Look back at the normal distribution... the more accurate we wish to be in not rejecting the null hypothesis when it's true, the larger the range of acceptable means will be. However you are increasing the error for inaccurately supporting the null hypothesis when the two means are different. Therefore the confidence level is a balancing act. In science however, it is safer to say there's no effect (fail to reject null hypothesis) than to support the alternate hypothesis when it's in fact incorrect.

Now going back to our visualization... remember we assumed the mean and standard deviation of our sample group of monkeys is representative (aka THE SAME) as the mean and standard deviation of the group.

So here we're comparing the fit of two bell curves. One for our population of googly-eyes (known mean, mu) and the other is our population of island monkeys estimated using a sample (X bar).

Obviously if the two means (mu & X bar) are the same, then the two are the same. DUH! Even googly eyed monkeys can tell you that...

But what if they're slightly different? How do we tell if the two groups are different or whether it's just error in estimating the true mean from the island monkeys using a sample? (That is, I picked them monkeys badly.)

To answer this, we go back to the distribution curves. Remember our island monkey sample mean is an estimate of the actual mean. How confident are we that the sample mean is the same as the actual mean? That involves two things.

1. How many samples we take. Obviously the more monkeys I catch and weight, the more confident I am of my mean. (relating to degrees of freedom)
2. How much variation is there between individual monkeys? If their weight doesn't vary at all... then weighing one monkey will be the same as weighing a hundred. However if they vary in weight a lot... then you'll need more monkeys to be confident about your mean.

We can represent the "confidence" of our sample mean using what's known as the T-distribution. Notice there's many many distribution curves... You see how you get the pointiest curve when k = infinite. The k here refers to degrees of freedom, which relates directly to our sample size (how many monkeys we weigh). So all this is saying is the more monkeys we weigh, the narrow a range for our "guess" of the mean (the more precise our guess). And when we reach k = infinite... we've measured the weight of every single monkey. So there's no guessing involved. We're simply comparing the means of googly eyes and island monkeys. Are they the same, or are they different. However, since we don't have the weights of every single monkey, our estimate will be less exact... which is reflected by the broader curve.

The T-distribution you see here is also normalized such that the mean is 0 and standard deviation is 1. The mean and SD from our sample has to be normalized (transformed) to fit to allow for a comparison. This is done by the stat calculations. So yes, the amount of variability within the data is accounted for.


T-distribution curves

Now that we have our T-distribution curve, we ask ourselves the question. What is the probability that the true mean weight of island monkeys is the same as that of the googly eyes? (or the other way of stating this is "what is the probability that the difference between sample mean and mean of googly eyes is due to sampling error?")


Looking at the equation you see the comparisons...
difference between sample and population mean, normalized to variability (S = standard deviation) and sample size (n).

Calculation then gives you a value... "T-value". In which you compare with the T-distribution.

For a given T-value, what is the probability that the sampling error can be what's calculated or more extreme. (aka what's the area under the curve on the two tails at a given T-value (both positive and negative direction). Which is the filled in region on the figure.)


Calculating probability based on T-value

Now that you have your probability... you compare it with your predetermined confidence level (alpha). Is the probability above or below your alpha? If it's below, then you can safely reject your null hypothesis... and say island monkeys do not weigh the same as googly eyed monkeys. DARN why aren't they the same?!? They LOOK the same!

I came across this article while catching up on my blog reading: The erosion of design education. The author Eric Karjaluoto indicated his frustrations with the current Design and New Media programs not being up to snuff. The article is old... written in 2006. There's also plenty of other blog writers expressing the same view point. However what truly caught my attention was the fact that Eric is local. The very names of institutions he mentioned included ones I'm familiar with... and the other example of a "bad" school is a superficially close approximation to the program I applied to. It strikes fear in the heart when you feel you might be making the wrong choice...

Too much in too little time
To summarize his thoughts, he feels these programs try to cram too much in too short a period of time. That within one or two years, students should "master" copywriting, graphics, audio/video editing, web technologies, multimedia etc... It's simply an impossibility within that time constrain. Not to mention instead of teaching about design principles and the creative thinking process, they focus only on software usage. When the software changes, it is the students who inevitable suffers. With that said, he strongly proposed attending a large art institution which offers a 4-year B.F.A. Only such degree program will afford you a strong fundamental background in Fine Art like life drawing, typography and art history... If that is so, what room is left for the shorter diploma programs?

Software ≠ Interactive Design
Then I came upon an article posted at AIGA talking about the same issue. That software ≠ interactive design. However they do acknowledge the need within the industry of personnel who are skilled with softwares AND have the people skills for effective team work and communications.

Hence they recommended the following:

In order for interactive design to move forward, we must generate thinkers, entrepreneurs, and innovators in the classroom, so they will have the ability and ambition to do more than mediate between the idea and end product using code or commercial software. In order to prepare students to be thinkers as well as form givers, they should be surrounded by process-sensitive problems and interdisciplinary projects that put them in touch with culture, current events and social issues. Said educational goals would create a self- motivated student with a passion for life-long learning as engaged citizens. A new graphic design curriculum that focuses on principle, tools, complexity, and change would better prepare students for such endeavors. Principles would instruct students about the means of creating dynamic, expressive, and communicative form; tools would sharpen hand and craft skills while introducing a wide variety of rendering methods including print and digital media; context would expose students to a range of problems, issues, and influences while fostering critical thinking and inquiry; and complexity would expose them to a range of difficult and dynamic problems needing intense examination and adaptability.

It gives me a sense of relieve that this is exactly what my program aims to do. To foster thinking and teamwork. And above all, how to become life-long learners. (So says the program coordinator...) The problem with the lack of fundamental art background still remains. However, you can't exactly fit it into a 2-year program. I suppose such will have to be developed on the side.

Be a proactive learner
Ultimately, as a student, regardless of your field or program, it is your responsibilities to make the best of your education. Take the initiative and go beyond learning what's taught and making it truly your own. Don't just rely on the program to teach you everything you need. Chances are they can't, since everybody has their unique needs. So find the program that works for you and supplement with whatever necessary to reach your goals.

Several weeks ago, Rogers wrote an article in Copyblogger titled "SpeedBlogging: How to write better posts in less time". One of the things she recommended was the use of a mind map in replacement of a traditional outline format in organizing our thoughts prior to writing.

As she said, a mind map is quick and easy to do. It also allows for a more creative and spontaneous transfer of ideas down on paper. Problem I find with mind maps though is that I have a tendency to go all over the place. One thought sometimes lead me off on a tangent... then a tangent off a tangent... In the end, I have a bunch of ideas and points that I think will be interesting to talk about, however they are not particularly "organized" in a easy-to-understand hierarchical fashion. So at times, I still ended up using an outline. Still perhaps this approach of using a mind map for blog writing could work for some people.

A mind-map feature
However the main spin-off idea I gotten from her article isn't so much on using mind-map for writing. Instead of using a mind-map as a stepping stone for an article, what if the mind-map IS the end "article"?

There is something inherently intuitive and easy-to-understand in mind-maps that makes it effective in delivering information quickly to the reader. Instead of focusing in immediately on the details, you first get to see the overall structure of how different ideas link together visually. Then you can move on to finding out more about each aspect of the topic.

There are so many mind-map generating softwares/web applications around... I'm surprised that nobody attempted to create a blog with mind-maps as posts.

So, enough with traditional paragraphs! Here's my mind-map summary of this idea. Enjoy!


Click on image to enlarge

In the second part of this two part series about web design programs around Greater Vancouver, I will be examining the selling points of individual schools. Since I've attended information sessions from Kwantlen, Capilano and BCIT, I'll be mainly focusing on these three schools and the marketing techniqued used by each.

I'll also briefly talk about the program offered by SFU as a comparison. Finally at the end of the article, I have tabulated an easy at-a-glance comparison of the different programs. For a quick overview of what market positioning is and my general comments about these schools see Part 1 from last week.

Kwantlen
Kwantlen's Graphic Design for Marketing (GDMA) program is one of their many programs in their Centre for Design and Communications. This is a 4 year degree program with a 3-year diploma early exit option.

Their main differentiating selling point is the marketing component in their program. Students are required to take an introductory Marketing course in the 2nd semester. The marketing theme is carried throughout the rest of the program. My biggest concern is how much more of a marketing focus is there in this program compared to other programs? Although it isn't heavily advertised, other schools, such as Capilano also incorporate basic marketing strategies in their curriculum. So how much is the word "Marketing" in the name of the degree worth? It's something to consider...

The second strategy Kwantlen employs in selling their GDMA program is in their information sessions. They have very limited number of info sessions in a year... one in September, and one in February. These sessions are shared between all the programs offered by the Centre. It starts off with a introduction about their school and their centre, followed by a brief description of all the programs offered. This is followed by a breakout session in which attendees can learn more about individual programs.

Why have so few info sessions? And why have joint sessions? From the practical aspect, it takes less work to organize. From the marketing/psychology perspective, joint sessions provide a sense of unity to the centre. The limited number of sessions also generate larger showings as compared to more frequent sessions for individual programs. A large turn out is important in promoting the reputation of the centre. Although we usually think of ourselves as individuals and can make independent decisions, we take comfort in observing others making the same choice. Along the lines of "a hundred people can't be wrong", simply seeing a large crowd in the conference hall is sufficient in re-confirming we made the right choice in attending the session.

A large crowd also plays into selling the program in the individual breakout sessions. The GDMA program has limited intake each year... 27 seats to be precise. In the simple law of supply and demand, if supply (number of seats) is much less than the demand (applicants), the value of the program goes up. This creates a sense of competition among the attendees. Not everybody will get in. The director further plays on this competition by indicating offers are given by first-come first-serve basis. Also if the applicants apply early, they will be interviewed before the main group. I hazard a guess that every attendee of the session applied as soon as possible. It's an excellent marketing strategy...

Capilano
Capilano college (now university) offers the Interactive Design program in their North Van campus (A little far for my taste). This is a 2-year diploma program with a 6-week work practicum at the end of the program. They differentiate themselves from the other programs by being very industry orientated. Students are said to be immediately employable upon graduation. And on their website, they boost a 90% employment rate for students 1 month after graduating from the program.

The Interactive Design program mainly targets highly self-motivated individuals who are flexible problem solvers. In the info session, they kept on stressing the distinguishing factor in their small class sizes and cohort-based learning (same group of students sharing classes as they proceed through the program). I couldn't help but have to comment that nearly all design programs in Greater Vancouver have small class sizes and are by nature cohort-based. This truly isn't much of a differentiating factor. Perhaps more focus should have been placed on teaching students how to be adaptive in the rapidly changing web design industry. Acknowledging that there's a great deal of change in the field and continual learning is necessary to keep pace with new emerging technology, which will showcase the strength of their program in "learning how to learn".

In terms of the things they did get right in their info session, they have a unique way of promoting their program. They handed out pencils with their name printed on it to the attendees of the session. This approach was also used by Kwantlen. (Actually I found it funny that the meet & greet girl at the sign-in table at Kwantlen insisted that I take the pen which I didn't really want.) What's different is the pencil they handed out. It was a heat-sensitive pencil that changes color upon touch. Before the session officially started, one of their two faculty at the meeting asked us to sign in, then presented the pencil with a demonstration. (The one I received changes from orange to a bright pink.)

Relating to marketing, brand awareness is the first step in selling a product. After all how do you sell something unless the buyer knows it exists in the first place? The color-changing pencil makes a great conversational piece which is great for name dropping. "Hey, check out this cool pencil! I got while at the info session at Capilano..." It is interesting to note that the pencil is unsharpened. Perhaps as an indicator that it's for play and not for writing purposes... therefore perhaps expanding the lifespan of their brand promotion.

However, brand promotion in itself is insufficient in generating sells. Their program has to be "good" in order to attract new students. Strictly looking at their course offerings, Capilano caters to a similar type of students as the new SIAT program from SFU at their surrey campus. The SIAT program is a 4-year degree program as compared to Capilano's diploma program. Why should students get a diploma when they can have a full degree at a well-known university? Capilano offers two reasons, 1. small class sizes (which doesn't really apply) 2. proven success of their students.

To illustrate their point, they suggested the attendees should look at the sample work put out by the graduating class each year which can be found on the program website. As a recommendation, they could have further driven home this point by showing some student work directly at the session rather than asking the attendees to go home to view the website. Visual impact of a well-executed powerpoint presentation leaves a professional and well-organized image of the program. In defense for Capilano, I did attend their very first info session for the Fall intake. So perhaps they were still getting everything prepared...

BCIT
BCIT's New Media Design and Web Development program is a 1-year diploma program. This differs from the others in terms of the short duration and that they have 2 intakes per year (September & April). I've attended their info session two years ago, so my knowledge on their program may be out-dated. However judging from the program offerings listed on their website, I don't believe much has changed since then.

BCIT, being a technology institute, focuses very heavily on teaching students the use of state-of-the-art technology, softwares and programming languages used currently in the industry. This is their main selling point: allowing students to easily enter the work force by teaching them what's current and what has been suggested by their industry partners as being important and useful to know. They also made a show of their state-of-the-art lab facilities with their new Mac workstations (two years ago, they were G4s with 24" wide-screen monitors), with emphasis on their fairly recent wireless lab.

So the BCIT program is targetting very similar students as the Capilano program. Like Kwantlen, BCIT used its name in selling their program. They did not try to compare themselves to other schools. Although they did mention their related partner program with Emily Carr. This is the exact opposite approach as Capilano's. After all, BCIT is sufficiently well-known. Indeed, judging from my observations at the info session, most of the attendees had not looked into other schools. Does their reputation reflect the quality of their program? I'll refer you to their student's grad show. The work should speak for itself. :]

Programs comparison at-a-glance
Finally, at the end of this very long post. Here's a side-by-side comparison of the top 4 design/development programs in Greater Vancouver.

Last Wednesday, I attended the information session for Capilano College's Interactive Design program. It was hugely different from the info session put out by Kwantlen's Graphic Design program I went to a few months ago and from BCIT's New Media Design/Dev program I went to 2 years ago. Since I'm currently taking an intro Marketing course, I thought it will be interesting to compare the relative positioning of these different programs based on what I've gathered from their info sessions. Perhaps this will be useful for people who're also thinking about studying web design in Vancouver.

To divide my thoughts into more manageable chuck, this topic will be discussed as a 2 parts series. Part 1 describes market positioning and looks at the trends in design schools in general. Part 2 will be looking at each program in detail.

Overall general comments on different schools
When we look at info sessions from the marketing perspective, We'll see each school try their best to brand themselves as the best choice for potential students. This is done primarily by differentiating themselves from other schools in various aspects. It makes it a difficult for us to compare the schools directly. Every one try to get us to consider different factors. For example Kwantlen stresses on the marketing aspect of their program, while Capilano emphasizes on their practical hands-on learning that reflects industry approach. BCIT is similar to Capilano in focusing on marketable skills, but also in teaching with state-of-the-art software applications. So it's very much like comparing apples and oranges that leaves us bewildered by the selection. Is this approach a way of confusing potential students into buying their belief of what is of value? Or are they merely specializing into different niches to cater for different type of students? Let's hope it's the latter...

A few words on market positioning
Before I start going into the details of individual schools, I should probably say a few words on market positioning. According to Wikipedia, market positioning "has come to mean the process by which marketers try to create an image or identity in the minds of their target market for its product, brand, or organization. It is the 'relative competitive comparison' their product occupies in a given market as perceived by the target market."

To put it into this context, it's the approach the schools use to get us to associate their programs with particular labels. In other words, "business & design" for Kwantlen and "job relevant skills" for Capilano and BCIT. These attribute were selected based on what we, as the target audience, should find important.

These attributes are probably best visualized in terms of a perceptual map which positions different products along axes for each important attribute.

Allow me to use a xkcd comic to illustrate (I love them):



Titled "Fuck Grapefruit", this perceptual map places how tasty a fruit is compared to how much effort it takes to eat it. Clearly in this case, we'll want to select fruits that are relatively tasty and easy to eat. Hence, fuck grapefruit. However, this is only looking at 2 attributes for fruits: taste and relative ease of consumption. If those two are the only things that matters, then why would anybody eat grapefruits? Yet we do see people eat them, so clearly this is not the case. What's another factor that matters? Nutritional value. Grapefruits (as sour they taste and difficult to eat) are high in vitamin C and contain anti-oxidants. Suddenly, we see how perceptual maps can be misleading...

Web design school perceptual map
With that caveat in mind, let us put our different programs on a perceptual map. To keep it simple, let us stick to comparing just 2 attributes. Program duration (short program vs long program) and study focus (design vs development).



I've placed the most well-known web design programs around Greater Vancouver on the map. As you can see we have the diploma programs which lasts between 1-2 years and we have the 4 year degree programs. The diploma programs are offered by technical schools (BCIT, AI) and college (Capilano) which focus on preparing students to dive into jobs immediately after graduation whereas the degree programs are offered by university (SFU) and university-college (Kwantlen) which stamp the name of their school as a part of the degree package.

We also need to consider the program focus. AI and Kwantlen are graphic design intensive, while BCIT is more technology/development heavy. Then you have programs with specializations in both design and development (Capilano and SFU). Students start off with a general background in both areas before specializing.

On top of that, we must consider other factors like program costs, location, reputation... You can see how complicated this gets. Clearly different people will place more value on different aspects and come up with a different ranking.

What factors do you consider when choosing which school to attend?
So what are your thoughts when it comes to selecting a school? What aspects are the most important for you?

Happy Chinese (Lunar) New Year everybody! It's been almost a month since my December series, "Count down to the New Year" where I've talked about different ideas for New Year's resolutions. Did you made some for this year? How are you coming along with them?

Does this sound like you?
Always wanted to do something but I never had the time to... Does that sound like you? It sure does for me.

You know how it is, we say we don't have the time and push it off until later when we have time. But in the end, we never do find the time. And we look back and feel the lost. If only I've started it... If only! I feel that the hardest part of any project is starting it.

As I described previously, inertia, whether it's physical or mental, is the tendency for an object or a person to resist change. Another way to visualize mental inertia is to imagine our project as a chemical reaction proceeding from our starting position on the left and the completion of our project on the right.


We are currently sitting at point "R", reactants. The point where we have all the ingredients we need to start our project but we haven't put any of it together yet. We would like to roll the ball down to point "P" to get to our products. But there's a big bump that get in our way. That is like our inertia. Every time we push it up the hill, we get tired and the ball rolls back to point "R". What we need is something like a chemical catalyst that decreases the height of that hill, to make it easier to roll the ball across.

Mental catalysts?
What can we do to overcome that hill? What we need is something like a chemical catalyst. A catalyst is a substance that helps decrease the height of that activation energy (Ea) hill to make it easier for us to roll the ball across. So what about mental catalysts?


From the psychology studies of motivation, it seems that how we perceive the issue has a huge impact on our actions. In particular, we have tendencies to focus on short term rewards over more beneficial long term goals. Therefore our mental catalysts are things that can shift our perception and see how much more rewarding the long term goals are.

1. Create subgoals
Notice on the chemical reaction energy curve that addition of the catalyst breaks down our single hill into many smaller ones. Our mental catalysts can do the same. Break down our main goal into multiple smaller subgoals. Call them steps on a staircase that makes it easier for us to make it to the top. Let us take a breather half way up our "hill" before shouldering onwards.
Often it helps to outline what we need to get done one step at a time so that we don't get the overwhelming feeling that everything is all piled up on top of us. Remember "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step". Focus on each step and we'll eventually reach our goal.

2. Visualize success
It sounds like some bogus confidence building exercise that ought not to work. But visualization truly can help us follow through with our goals. When we're imagining what we need to do, the message is passed onto our subconscious mind. The iceberg has first been used by Sigmoid Freud to describe our mind. Our conscious mind is like the tip of the iceberg that floats above the water. The other 2/3 of our minds are submerged. The subconscious mind is akin to untapped potential. It's not very good at understanding words, but it very readily picks up concepts and emotions. If you visualize and feel that you can succeed. The subconscious mind will help you lower the energy hill.

3. Target directed strategies
Another point in creating subgoals and visualizing success is to be specific. Always create goals that allows you to quantitatively measured progress every step along the way. I have a tendency to belittle my own work. I work myself to death and at the end of it, I discount my effort. I might say my work is barely acceptable or that other people can do the same, better or faster. By creating specific milestones like I will run for 15 minutes straight without stopping, or I will have 5 pages of the introduction section of my paper written up, I demonstrate to myself that "Yes, I really am making progress!".

Can you think of any other mental catalysts that'll help us stick to our goals? Let's hear them. Also good luck to you on carrying through with your resolutions.

Last week, I discussed my experience on preparing slides for my department seminar. I presented the research that Thursday to the department and it was quite well received. I wasn't expecting such a large turn-out, but the seminar room was jam packed. Then I received a last-minute request on Tuesday to present my research the next morning at the hospital in the Anesthesia Grand Rounds. This time around, I didn't do as well. I've gave it some thought and came up with several reasons why that was so.

Did not target the specific audience
First of all, there was a change in the audience. In my department seminar, the attendees were graduate students and professors who are familiar with research protocols. Whereas at the hospital, the audience were all anesthesiologists. Most of whom have little background knowledge on research in general, let alone animal research. They were also less motivated to learn about something that isn't directly related with their work. Therefore it was harder to capture and maintain their attention in comparison to people at the department seminar.

It's one of the main rules when presenting that, whenever possible, you should tailor your talk towards your audience. Therefore if I had given it more thought, I should have tried tying my research with the work of anesthesiologists. Perhaps how the discovery of a new drug would be useful in the management of chronic pain and more on the progression of our research towards a product for the clinic.

Was speaking far too rapidly
The second main issue was that I was talking far too quickly in my presentation. The presentation was shorten from its original length of 35 minutes down to 25 minutes. From the seminar presentation, I was already moving along at a fair clip. With the new time constraint, I ended up talking even faster.

One of the anesthesiologists in the audience made a joking comment later that I was talking so quickly that he could barely keep up. This really emphasizes the point that while it is important to thoroughly rehearse your presentation, you can over-practice. You become so familiar with the material that you whip through slide after slide, neglecting the fact that this is often the very first time your audience is exposed to this information.

To address the shorten presentation time, I should have removed a minor section completely instead of simply taking out a few slides. The aim of a presentation is for understanding, and not completeness. This thought didn't come to me until after I presented. The really was no reason why I needed to go over every step of my project. Removing that minor section would pare down the talk to 20 minutes. Then I would have the extra 5 minutes necessary to explain the remaining items in depth.

Final tip (and note to myself): The presentation isn't about you... Always focus on the audience!