New
Textbook Review
I am currently researching the possibility of
publishing a new text on Multimedia by Anton Eliens, and am keen to receive
feedback from lecturers who are currently teaching in these areas. Many thanks,
therefore, for agreeing to help with my research. Below are listed the
questions I would like you to answer.
A report following the
headings listed below would be ideal. If you would please avoid answering “yes”
or “no” to individual questions, and answer all questions as fully as possible,
I would be very grateful.
As far as length is
concerned, I would hope to receive approximately five sides of typed A4. Can I please remind you that the deadline
for this review will be
Please contact me if you
have any queries or require any further information. My direct telephone number
is: 020 7067 2584. My address is:
Thomson
Learning,
High
Holborn House,
50-51
WC1R 4LR.
Many thanks
Gaynor Redvers-Mutton
Multimedia Systems is a Part III single semester module.
You can do a degree or Masters in Computer Science with Image and
Multimedia Systems.
Students will typically be 3rd year BSc students with a solid
grounding in computer science theory.
There is one 3rd yr option which is chosen by between 40-80
students a year (30-60% of the year group)
Our aim is to provide a broad overview of the area re-inforced by private study on a specific topic. For the
purposes of the course we loosly divide the field
into the following four themes (Multimedia Networking, Multimedia Storage,
Distributed Information Systems and, Applications and Content Creation).
The students are expected to write a research paper on one aspect of
Multimedia Systems. These can range from technical briefings of a technology to
discussions of social issues. The course is designed to cover a range of
material from theory and philosophy through the practical issues and technical
details.
One of the core principles seems to be discussing how the field relates
to and overlaps with other areas of computer science. It is a difficult subject
to pidgeon hole, not least because there are many working
definitions.
It’s difficult to think of it as just one subject. As will become
apparent from my answers below, often it will be defined by which
other courses run alongside it.
It is such a broad topic that it can cover a multitude of things. I suspect
more chunks will break off and form their own areas. DigitalBroadcasting
for instance could easily occupy a course on its own and many of the interface
issues raised in multimedia systems are being tackled by the HCI community and
the Ubiquitous Computing community so drawing lines
will always be a temporary thing.
Students can use whatever technologies they choose depending on the
nature of the topic they have chosen. Only a subset will do practical work but
they range from implementing steganography algorithms
through to setting up VOIP systems.
Not included on the course. A graphic design or art department would be
better candidates to teach it. We do have a Computer Graphics module and
elements might be covered on the HCI course.
Very popular with students, included VOIP and
standards such as MusicXML. Digital rights issues are also heavily debated.
Again, not specifically taught. This seems to be a combination of Computer Graphics
(taught elsewhere) and Animation (best taught by artists). Tools for creating
animations could be chosen but not the process itself.
Usability can be considered for any multimedia system. Usability as a
concept would not be gone into in depth, the HCI module includes this.
Hypermedia has its own module at
Social factors are a strong influence here. Many multimedia systems
raise issues to do with Privacy, Rights Management, Ethics
and also have social impacts in terms of changing how people live their lives.
The students will often look at these aspects for example discussing how
technologies like MSN Messenger have changed how people communicate over
distances.
The writing style is not very clear. Despite claiming to be academic I
found lots to be very opinionated and vague, often straying into hyperbole. The
grammar would need strong editing to provide an easy reading experience.What are presented as definitions often turn out
to be opionions or even inaccurate potrayals. ‘virtual reality (is)
when and where the computer disappears and you become the ‘ghost in the
machine’ is one of the worst definitions I’ve come across.
I found the inclusion and ommisions in the
table of contents to be quite puzzling. Admittedly not having read all the
chapters I was unable to see how distinctions were drawn between Information
Spaces, Information Systems Architecture and Digital Content Creation. Topics
such as hypermedia and Virtual Environments have been written about extensively
elsewhere and without a strong tie in to a central message seem to be just two
examples out of any number that could have been chosen. Chapter 4, masquerading
under the guise of Multimedia Platforms, is actually a tutorial of DirectX 9
SDK that would make an appendix to a Computer Graphics book and anywyay would be out of date before the book reached the
printers.
I didn’t feel that any core topics were covered. The chapters
disolved into specific technical examples almost
instantly. What’s worse, the introduction left me with no clear idea as to what
the author thinks multimedia is other than the idea of digital convergence.There is no one definition of multimedia, it
will depend what field you work in and what perspective you are taking. To not
tackle this is a major oversight. Application development appears to be a
coursework and not a chapter with an information
content. Multimedia networking appears to be absent and there seems to be very
little evidence of social implications.
As I said above, some sections will be covered in more depth in books
specifically about those topics. Without a conceptual overviewing
tying them into multimedia systems topics such as VR, hypermedia and Computer
Graphics i.e. DirectX 9 could easily be left out.
Multimedia Networking, History of Multimedia, Social Implications, a
proper (accurate) chapter on communications theory. Rather than go into too
much detail here, I found and have pasted below the call for papers from this
years Multimedia conference. This is what the Multimedia Research community
believes are interesting topics in the field of multimedia systems today. It is
interesting to compare this list with the contents page of the manuscript.
Multimedia analysis,
processing, and retrieval, including multimedia semantics,
aesthetics, modeling, assimilation/fusion,
audio/video/multi-modal processing, multi-sensor processing, multimedia content
description and indexing, multimedia digital rights management (protection and
attribution), content-based retrieval with emphasis on multiple and novel
media.
Multimedia networking
and systems, including context-aware multimedia
communications, Internet telephony, peer-to-peer streaming, audio/video
streaming, multimedia content distribution, wireless multimedia, adaptive
support for scalable media, Internet protocols, multimedia servers, operating
systems, middleware and QoS.
Multimedia tools,
end-systems, and applications, including new UI
metaphors, usable distributed collaboration, authoring, multi-modal interaction
and integration, multimedia in e-learning, entertainment, personal media,
assisted living, and virtual environments.
I found the examples to be at best distracting and at worst
incomprehensible summaristions of niche areas of
research (I’m thinking ‘VR for pain relief’ here). The authors
tendancy to take examples from the City where he
lives and his own work make the book seem very parochial and insular. There are countless better example out there that could have been
chosen. An example is also only good if it has a point to illustrate and too
often no concept was clearly presented in the first place.
This is difficult to answer as I’m left unsure as to what concepts the
author is trying to communicate.
I’m not sure I agree with the idea of having learning objectives at the
start of chapters. Learning objectives will always need to be tailored to
courses (and students), they will vary across education systems, and it
suggests that the material can only be used to get across specific ideas.
Perhaps suggested learning objectives could be provided for teachers
seperately. Having said that, ‘You should be able to
… recount the history of digital entertainment.’ (Chapter 1) Is not an
achievable learning goal by any stretch of the imagination.
Even if any history of digital entertainment were offered in the chapter, which
it isn’t! The questions were weak reflections of the learning objectives, the
case studies were so embedded in the course taught at the author’s instituation so as to be incomprehensible, the future
directions were at best a single random research area.
If I’m honest, no. With no captions it was unclear why they were there.
I’m also not sure why ‘the artwork’ is described in the preface. Surely this is
a note to the editor at best.
There should be less pictures from the author’s
‘personal’ collection and more images that actually illustrate something. And
the text should say why they’re there.
I’m assuming that the manuscript in the form sent to me was typeset by
the author? There were numerous problems, captions missing, case issues,
floating headings, etc. To be honest though, if the content
isn’t right then that’s a side issue.
I’m not sure it’s enhanced at all. If anything, the constant cramming in
of material from the author’s own course only serves to undermine any efforts a
lecturer might make to use the book for their own cohort. If someone wants to
pick up an entire course off the shelf then the learning approach, goals,
assessment, evaluation and general methodology need to be articulated in a far
more comprehensive manner.
I’m always wary of supplementals, they often make people feel the book doesn’t have to stand
entirely on its own. If someone is going to maintain it, then a portal site
that has links to interesting reading, projects, additional material might be
useful but they go out of date very quickly. One of the urls
listed in the manuscript already doesn’t exist and it’s still at the review
stage.
Not that I can think of.
§
What other
Multimedia textbooks teach principles rather than/as well as practice?
Principles of Interactive Multimedia, Mark
Elsom-Cook
§
What are
the main text(s) used to teach this subject? (Please list author, title, and
publisher)
Digital Multimedia, N. Chapman, J. Chapman
§
Which of
these books do you use yourself? Why did you choose it and what would make you
change to another textbook?
I don’t use either as the nature of our course is that there is no
core-text and students are encouraged to reasearch
specific topics themselves and gain an overview from reviewing and reading each
others work.
§
What are
the real strengths and weaknesses of the main competing texts (content,
pedagogy, design, supplements)? Please list 4 or 5 key points.
§
Do they
take a significantly different approach to Eliens?
§
What
pedagogical features do they include? How well do these aid teaching and
learning?
§
In what
ways is Eliens strong compared to these books? (If possible, please list 5 key
points.)
§
In what
ways is Eliens weak compared to these books? (If possible, please list 5 key
points.)
An Introduction to
Multimedia Authoring
What is Multimedia? No answer is given to
this question!
The Essence of
Multimedia
Or provide your own
suggested title……A personal perspective on Multimedia
………………………………………………….
§
What do you feel would be the main market for this
book?
Students
attending the author’s own course on Multimedia
§
Would you
use this book as a textbook for your course(s)?
Not a chance.
§
If so,
what could make this a required, set book for your course?
§
What
improvements/changes are mandatory for publication?
I’m not sure where to start. It needs to have a
coherent approach. It needs to define multimedia in something other than one
narrow research based categorisation. It needs the communications studies
sections to be reviewed by someone that understands the topic to at least
A-level standard.
§
What other
enhancements would you (ideally) like to see?
Incremental changes are not going to be enough.
§
What would
you identify as the key strength(s) of this manuscript?
If you want to write a 3D shader using
DirectX9 in the next year then Chapter 4 is for you.
§
Given the
above, please rate the strength of this book proposal, assuming that this draft
will be modified and refined in the light of technical editing and reviewer
feedback:
1 = not suitable for publication
√
------------------------------------------------------
2 = average but requiring major modifications
3 = good background on Multimedia and could be useful on my course
4 = strong coverage, will recommend to my students
5 = excellent, will set as required textbook
Please
indicate whether you would like to review more chapters from this manuscript as
and when they have been developed.
Given my
views stated above, I can’t see any more chapters changing my view on this
manuscript. Also, as my main research area is Hypermedia, the thought of
reading Chapter 2 fills me with dread.
This is the end of your review. Very many thanks again for your time and feedback.
I can
only apologise if my review appears unduly harsh, however, I was disturbed by
quite how poor this manuscript is. I was also slightly surprised that it has
even gone out for review by domain specific reviewers. Even someone with no
knowledge of the field would find this an uncomfortable and uninformative read.
I could almost see the author gathering his lecture notes, research papers, last
years courseworks and contents off his random pinboard of interesting applications to mash together to prepare this book. I suspect an incremental
approach may not be enough here, the author needs to sit down and think about
what multimedia is for everyone and not just tell his own personal experience
of the field, which is, I’m afraid, what we have here.