Heavy going article from Bauke Lievens addressing her concerns about the lack of development in circus:
First Open Letter to the Circus: “The need to redefine”
It talks about a few concepts which we've touched on recently here on the Edge. It took a long time to read this because I had to stop & think for quite a while after almost every paragraph.
Juggling Edge vocab watch:
A dramaturge or dramaturg is a professional position within a theatre or opera company that deals mainly with research and development of plays or operas. Its modern-day function was originated by the innovations of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, an 18th-century German playwright, philosopher, and theorist about theatre.
via Circus Geeks
Owen Greenaway - - Parent #
I think your link is broken.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
This post is source #5 that forwards this article to me in some way. Initially I failed to see why this article is that important.
I am all up for opening a wide dialog, as she suggests. The 'fame' that this article receives is probably a sign that the discussion is indeed not as active as it should.
Besides of that, I don't think much of it. There were many things I did not understand, and would require clarification before I could clear up my opinion, and a few things I disagreed with.
I wish there were more articles like this. Therefore she made a good start, just not from a position that I can understand.
Perhaps I'll post the comments which I've emailed to Bauke here bit by bit when it seems fitting.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
I liked the letter/article but, like you, it's from a position I either don't agree with, or if I do, just don't care enough about it. Or if I do care about it, I don't care about it for my own work or artistic expression.
The major premise is that circus needs to evolve, or needs to become a more serious artistic endeavor, or needs to appeal to more people, or needs to appeal to a more select group of critics/funding bodies/national associations, etc. If I agreed with that premise, I'd find the article a compelling addition to a conversation about the topic. But I don't agree with that premise, because I'm not exactly a huge fan of the concept of circus itself. It's just a thing that is adjacent to my current profession and hobbies and interests, not central to it.
That said, I do agree with most of the points about mixing character and story with circus skills, and how they normally interrupt each other. Some of the near-best full length circus shows I've seen acknowledge this implicitly or explicitly, and work around it. Then the best full length circus shows I've seen don't have the problem at all, and that's one thing that makes them stand out. But those are very, very few indeed, and are generally only juggling shows, not general circus shows that include more acrobatic and/or aerial skills.
But the general format of circus is a series of acts. It's a show of variety, and I want the best expression of each thing. Most of the best acrobats won't be good actors, so why should I see them play out painfully bad stories or emotions? Most jugglers won't be good dancers, so why should I want to watch them try to keep up with the beautiful aerialist who have worked for years at being graceful?
Of course the clowns come back throughout the show, and become the embodiment of character and story and emotion. It's their job!
The major premise is that circus needs to evolve, or etc.
I think the author missed a trick when they said "If we want circus to become more [whatever], we need to [do things]".
Most of the article is about developing a kind of framework for integrating circus into traditional art criticism. They are describing a different way of relating to circus performance or of thinking about it. And I think that is all super interesting, it's not "redefining circus" in the sense of changing it into something else, it's just another framework for thinking. I like having more frameworks for thinking. But because the author added, almost in passing, this idea that there is a moral imperative for change via alternative thinking, they have set everybody here off but-but-ing the whole thing. There is a huge mine of interesting ideas in this article about circus history and development and its relationship to art criticism and development, but here we are on the alternative and well trodden topic of "what is the point of circus", which is a rabbit hole and also a tangent to the point the author seems to be trying to make.
Does circus do postmodern, never mind post-postmodern? Is postmodernism (and so forth) a useful lens through which to think about circus? If not why not? Does it benefit the art world to have a well-developed critical theory or does it just send everybody up their own arse? Does art theory have anything to offer Gladys who paints watercolours of flowers and sells them on a market stall?
Well stated, emilyw.
I must admit, the point at which I completely parted company with the article was "post-human experiences"... there's a level of wanky-bollocks beyond which I will not go!
lukeburrage - - Parent #
I love some wanky-bollocks discussions and theories.
One does has to "suspend disbelief" a little sometimes. I find there's a big problem when wanky-bollocks approaches the issue of real people and what they should do or think or how they should regard themselves, because disregarding people's personal lived experience in favour of some arty-bollocks framework is a good way to get a punch in the snozz.
I suspect that this author is being confusing with their hyphens and that "post-human" is referring here to posthumanism (they also say "post-modern" to refer to postmodernism). Posthumanism which is just a movement that critiques or responds to the humanist movement, not like "what if we were all robots" or something.
Thanks for the helpful explanation :) That does make more sense than robot circus.
Even so, any movement whose primary raison d'etre is as a response to another movement seems to me the definition of wanky-bollocks! (Yep, I'm not a fan of postmodernism either)
I would be the first person in line for tickets to the robot circus.
I also think we should have robot Formula 1 so they could stop being so worried about crashing into each other.
.. and them plockheads fight out their stupid wars with robots on mars instead real soldiers here on earth when it's xmas.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
Formula E & Kinetik announce driverless support series
UK|27 Nov 15
Formula E and Kinetik today announced a partnership with the intention to launch a global race series for driverless electric cars. This new championship called ‘ROBORACE’ will provide a competitive platform for the autonomous driving solutions that are now being developed by many large industrial automotive and technology players as well as top tech universities.
The plan is for ROBORACE to form part of the support package of the FIA Formula E Championship, with the first race intended to take place during the 2016-2017 season. ROBORACE is aimed to take place prior to each Formula E race, using the same circuits in major cities across the world. Ten teams, each with two driverless cars, will compete in one-hour races over the full championship season. All the teams will have the same cars however will compete using real-time computing algorithms and AI technologies.
Denis Sverdlov, Founder of Kinetik and ROBORACE, said: “We passionately believe that, in the future, all of the world’s vehicles will be assisted by AI and powered by electricity, thus improving the environment and road safety. ROBORACE is a celebration of revolutionary technology and innovation that humanity has achieved in that area so far. It’s a global platform to show that robotic technologies and AI can co-exist with us in real life. Thus, anyone who is at the edge of this transformation now has a platform to show the advantages of their driverless solutions and this shall push the development of the technology.”
The mission of ROBORACE is to demonstrate that the future of automotive and information technology is already here and can even work in extreme conditions. ROBORACE believes that there is a lot of independent talents in the world that might contribute to this initiative. That is why one of the race teams will be organised as a crowd-sourced community team open for enthusiastic software and technology experts all over the world.
Further support for both Formula E and ROBORACE shall come from Charge, an automotive start-up founded by Kinetik that develops revolutionary range-extended electric powertrains for commercial vehicles. Charge will become Official Truck Partner of the FIA Formula E Championship and will provide electric trucks for the drivers’ parade, towing trucks for emergency recovery of the racing cars and shuttles for transportation of guests and visitors of the championship around the eVillage.
Alejandro Agag, CEO of Formula E, said: “We are very excited to be partnering with Kinetik on what is surely one of the most cutting-edge sporting events in history. ROBORACE is an open challenge to the most innovative scientific and technology-focused companies in the world. It is very exciting to create a platform for them to showcase what they are capable of and I believe there is great potential for us to unearth the next big idea through the unique crowd-sourced contest.”
Further details and announcements about the teams and technologies to be used will be made early next year.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Sounds great. Still I am not very interested in post-human circus.. :p
Stephen Meschke - - Parent #
How many years until a machine makes it on the top 40 jugglers list?
Little Paul - - Parent #
7
Maybe that depends on how many years it is until robots are allowed to vote for the top 40 jugglers.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
Like I said, I agree with much of the article. And I would think it an important discussion if I thought circus needed to evolve or change or whatever. But if it does or not must be decided first, before anyone starts putting in massive effort into causing an entire movement or art form or entertainment industry to change direction.
I think if the ideas that the author thinks are so important are really so important, and would lead to much greater audiences/critical acclaim/other metric of success, wouldn't this play out in the general entertain market or art world?
Personally I think these things ARE important, and the shows that do consider and address them are more likely to be successful. But you know what? It's HARD. It really takes the best in the world at a specific circus skill to also be a world class director, or let a director have complete control over world class circus performers.
This kind of evolution has worked before, and now "Cirque du Soliel Style Acts" are categories in entertainer agent and booking websites. In juggling it has worked before, and now "Men in tight black clothes doing emotion-free object manipulation with weird shapes" is just a genre. "Kiev Style" is now so formulaic it can be applied to any skill, and seems to be successful both commercially and with other jugglers. Sean Gandini is producing new hit shows every year, and has residencies in opera houses and such, and his structuralist postmodern approach is the solid backbone that allows it to happen.
People charge ahead, and the scene is generally playing catch up.
Very long article .. just flew over it briefly. Also, I know few about circus other than what gets shown on TV and very few live visits. I'm every year especially keen on watching the Monte Carlo Festival.
Still, I read mainly about what Bauke Lievens wants circus to be, sort of reaching out for what circus is meant to be in the future, maybe circus philosophy, but not a word of they who it's done for: the visitors, the audience. And that is mainly families with their kids. And they do it in a row with going to the zoo, to a fairy, to a christmas or mideval market, to public soccer viewing, to riding ponies, and what all undertakings there is to provide kids with input they like.
Circus trying to (re)find itself can't go without asking: What do we want to offer? And: Why and to whom? Instead: What do I (or: we) want it to be, want it to convey, which elaborated development to take etc.
The article reminds me of young artists, painters, musicians still finding themselves, maybe wondering why no one cares for what they're doing, in any case not doing their art for someone (audience, customer), but only in search of the best way to express themselves. Express what and why? And for the sake of the (they think) best or highest possible or the very art itself only.
But maybe I missed a meta level taking kids and families as audience for granted.
The whole point of art is self-expression - it's not about appealing to an audience. Van Gogh didn't sell a single painting in his lifetime, yet we now recognize him as one of the greatest artists ever to have lived.
Circus comes from populist roots, but that doesn't mean audience appeal must be considered when treating it as an art form. It's the difference between making Riverdance and Pina Bausch.
Yeh, but circus is (by nature? in reality? in the end?) meant to be shown for an audience. So soon or late the two will have to come together if what circus you're doing is not merely done for your own ideals or to please your personal circus god. Surely you want a philosophy (why you're doing it, and how you think best it's to be done), a style (express yourself, give it your character or personal style), something more than just showing off trained skills learned by heart, at its best a spark to spring over to the audience. So it's an everlasting dilemma in those arts that are in the end meant to be shown or sold, that the artists put their ideas and ideals into acts, but then want (palpable) feedback for it. As soon as you sell or show, you will need to take into account who will be watching and providing for your living and what (elaborated ideas and ideals) they can take and come to see you for.
Redefining a circus then can't go without asking what you want to give to whom.
I think maybe "diversity" might be a good answer. Not defining "the future circus" too tight. Maybe there is no need to redefine. Circus directors are necessarily and constantly doing it. But it's really difficult, if not impossible, to take it all down to a formula or to a main direction to be followed or to a main intent. It's always been a more or less open stage and inventing itself anew by times and means (gear, props, stories told) changing.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Expression is meant to be shown for an audience, and circus is indeed not different.
What's against pleasing your personal circus god?
Though it is also besides the point. If Bauke believed that everyone should just please themselves, there would be little need for her article.
The real issue is that 'direct pleasure' or 'entertainment' is the not only purpose of a circus performance.
Bauke suggest she doesn't want to communicate 'craft', rather 'art'.
It could certainly be argued that all of the performing arts are intended to have an audience, but it does not automatically follow that the audience needs to be a consideration when forming the work.
A purely "art" approach would be to make the work and let the audience respond as they will.
If "entertainment" and/or "commerce" are goals, then the audience becomes important in the making process.
I agree completely with your third paragraph. Like you, I see no need to formally redefine circus, hence Bauke's article fails for me at its fundamental premise.
I read the whole article now. A lot of (constructed?) criticism e.g. "mere(??) repetition of old traditional schemes", the "apparatusses or physical trajectories `dominating´ the artists"(??) or vice versa. Queer onsights. Rather: "mastering" or "playing with" or "flowing with" their gear, apparatus and physical laws (not "dominating").
Just a few more (pure art & circus related) keywords maybe help define circus: "sensation(al)", "creativity", (why not:) "arena", (show-) "act" .. ? Maybe find shared aspects with and differences to e.g. varieté (entertainment, stage, audience, show, talk, ..) and to e.g. sportive events (arena, spectators, skill-competition, ..), in order to define and or distinguish circus from.
I don't see circus become story-telling like theatre.
And not artists committing to a general intent or direction, circus `should´ take. Also not a philosophical elite providing for aims or change (of what exactly?) to be achieved.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Some of the critique on this article might stem from the issue that we still try to see and define circus as a whole.
I've never heard of anyone commenting on dance as a whole, or theatre as a whole.
The circus of today comes in many forms and genres, but they are not very well defined besides some vague meaning to "traditional circus".
I think this article is very valid for a specific genre of circus, and not so much for others.
Would it be beneficial for circus (oh the irony, commenting on circus as a whole) to become more aware of the distinctions between circus genres/styles? And giving them names?
runfinder.py - counts catches and links to the start of each run.
When I juggle for 7 ball endurance, I like to turn the camera on and try to juggle 7 balls for about 10 minutes. I capture juggling, but I also capture picking up drops, taking breaks, and drinking water. Reviewing video can be time consuming.
Why not automate?
I wrote runfinder.py. This program watches the video and counts the number of catches in each run. The number of catches and the time the run started are displayed.
This is the 9 minutes 7 ball endurance juggling practice video I analyzed using runfinder.py: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA.
This is the output from runfinder.py:
Run number 1 was 14 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=12
Run number 2 was 43 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=23
Run number 3 was 44 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=45
Run number 4 was 31 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=88
Run number 5 was 40 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=117
Run number 6 was 40 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=142
Run number 7 was 27 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=212
Run number 8 was 24 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=240
Run number 9 was 36 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=262
Run number 10 was 43 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=282
Run number 11 was 52 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=309
Run number 12 was 85 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=341
Run number 13 was 34 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=403
Run number 14 was 29 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=429
Run number 15 was 152 catches: https://youtu.be/sm-GxpeuMsA?start=461
The throw counts are off by only a few throws, if any. Any juggles with fewer than 14 throws (an arbitrary number) aren't considered runs. The accuracy is good enough to find the best few runs out of the video, without having to watch any of it.
Here is a link to the code: https://pastebin.com/WVgjbetY.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
This is amazing! Not to find your best run in the video, but to quickly acquire a big amount of data!
I always thought 'records' were unreliable data, they say nothing about your 'average'. I'd love to see how my averages differ from day to day, how often I really do qualify, etc.
If we were to create a video database with training videos, we might be able to find some cool data to help improve training! The uses for this are countless!
I'm going to try your program, soon..!
Stephen Meschke - - Parent #
I wrote runfinder.py to collect data.
After a post by Dee, I was reading about inverse gamma distributions. For several days I was preoccupied with whether length of juggling runs is an example of a Poisson distribution or an inverse gamma distribution. I devised an experiment. I found that collecting data would be too time consuming without automation.
Working on this, I realized that personal records are not indicative of general skill. Looking at the statistical distribution of the runs, such as in a histogram, is more valuable training data.
"I realized that personal records are not indicative of general skill"
Are you suggesting a personal best of 175 catches of 7 balls for person A vs a personal best of 10 catches of 7 balls for person B will give no indication of skill level?! Or simply that two people with records of 175 catches may have quite* different averages?
*How different?
Mike Moore - - Parent #
We could find out! Next time we post an endurance record (that's not long enough to be really fatiguing), we could also record the next 10 attempts. I'll do that next time I beat my 7b record.
Stephen Meschke - - Parent #
I was wrong. Personal records are indicative of general skill. This will be easier to understand if you look at the graph I made.
What I should have said: To assess general skill you have to look at more than just personal records. Looking at a histogram (like this one from my 7b endurance practice today
) to see the distribution of the number of catches per run is more helpful than looking at the best run of the day.
For example: Looking at the graph above, the best run of the day was 184 catches*, but 17 (out of 36) runs only lasted between 9 and 26 catches. A better juggler may have a best run of <100 catches, but a lot more runs from 60 to 70 catches, giving them a higher average than me.
*I used matplotlib in Python to make that graph using the code plt.plot(plt.hist(runs, bins=10)[0]). From the graph the best run does look like 175, but it was 184 in the data. There is only a single data point in the bin from 166 to 184 catches, and it falls on the extreme right side of the bin.
Personal, to be able to identify distributions; I prefer to use densities rather than histograms for visualisation purposes...
an example comparing and contrasting the two: linky here
using data I generated that came from a mixture of a gamma distribution and a poisson distribution...
How histograms look are particularly influenced by what rule you use for deciding how many "bins" to use and where to put the breaks between bins.
Stephen Meschke - - Parent #
Your example was very informative. 38 data points in a single juggling session was quite tiring. Reaching 300 data points (the size of the set in your example) will take some time, but I am very interested to see the resulting density function.
I generated a density function for the 17 minute practice session: https://i.imgur.com/kpk6hI2.png.
Glad to be of help!
Also, think about plotting the run time against how far into the session the run was. This would be interesting to see what the "optimal" practice time for endurance sessions. This is likely to be highly variable per person, so with your automated run detection script, you could then come up with a personalised strategy.
That is great work! I wonder if the guys behind jtv would be able to integrate this into the encoding process?
Stephen Meschke - - Parent #
Integrating juggling ball detection and run counting into the encoding process is possible. Run time was manageable. After optimization, the run time to process the 9 minute video (1.1gigs) was 4 minutes on my AMD Athlon Dual Core 4850e.
noslowerdna - - Parent #
Very cool. Earlier this year I created a video clip catalog system that could be a complimentary tool to this.
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
Awesome. I really hope I actually get round to trying this.
Stephen Meschke - - Parent #
I'll try it for you if you will send me some video.
I took this video in a freshly painted white racquetball court with 2.65" dark blue spherical Russian style juggling balls. I used a Garmin Virb action camera set on 720p60fps Ultra-zoom. Contrast between the background and the juggling balls should be maximized.
The camera was placed on top of a 7.5' door that opened into the racquetball court. I was standing 12 feet from the camera. I am 5' 11" tall.
A setup similar to this is necessary to optimize the video for processing.
Mike Moore - - Parent #
Fantastic! Sounds like a good way of measuring progress. Back when I was learning how to flash 7b, I'd do 40 attempts each day, and record how many were successes...this would have made life much easier.
Owen Greenaway - - Parent #
Thanks for making this. I'll look at it over the weekend :)
Stephen Meschke - - Parent #
To run this program you need to install Python and OpenCV. Both are free, and easy to install in Ubuntu. They are possible to install in Windows and Mac.
Read through this page on the Hough Circle Transform before you look at the program.
Stephen Meschke - - Parent #
Thank you everyone! Your comments and ideas are very helpful.
I made this video to help explain how runfinder.py works: https://youtu.be/Y_g-t9S-2fk.
Happy St. Andrew's Day everyone.
Today is the last chance to benefit from the Super Early Bird BJC pre-reg prices. All prices will go up tomorrow.
www.bjc2016.co.uk/tickets
#BJC2016
Little Paul - - Parent #
Thanks for the reminder!
*throws money at the screen*
*picks money up*
*tries again with paypal*
Owen Greenaway - - Parent #
Thanks for saying, buying now.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
Booked:
BJC 2016 ticket.
Plane ticket.
B&B.
Anyone driving south from Perth on Sunday via the A1 who can give me lift to Scotch Corner/Barnard Castle?
FYI there appears to be an update regarding hard standing at #BJC2016
Little Paul - - Parent #
Thanks for spotting that, it reflects what Ron told me at the weekend :)
I just looked at the index view, and wondered where "Happy Street" was.
Meanwhile... Pre-regged!
There are many according to Google maps:
Happy St, Buluk, Juba, Central Equatoria, South Sudan
Happy St, Church Point, Louisiana 70525, United States
Happy St, Cleveland, Mississippi 38732, United States
Happy St, Malvern, Arkansas 72104, United States
Happy St, Mt Pleasant, Texas 75455, United States
Happy St, Edwardsport, Indiana 47528, United States
Happy St, Paramount, California 90723, United States
Happy St, Marrero, Louisiana 70072, United States
Happy St, Norwich, Connecticut 06360, United States
Happy St, Lebanon, Tennessee 37087, United States
I can't believe everyone has taken so long to pre reg…
Little Paul - - Parent #
For me, I was holding out for an announcement about hard standing for camper vans (which still hasn't appeared from what I can tell)
Eventually I just said fuckit. If that announcement ever materialises then fine, if not I'll either find a series of lay-bys to park in like its the 90s
[Knowledge Request] Last week I filmed my whole juggling practice with the intention of watching the footage later and updating my record log. Now it's come to actually watching the video I can't be bothered to find my best runs among all the footage.
My current method is that when I think I've had a good run I stop and restart the camera. Then when I get back I just need to watch the last part of each clip. (I forgot to do this last week so would have to speed through all of it).
Is there a good way to mark on the recording when your best runs were? How do you measure your best runs?
P.S I can't count as I juggle.
Oscar Lindberg - - Parent #
I mostly do like you - stop the video. But if I not do that I'll turn on fast forward and listen to the sound of the catche as I do something else. But I haven't filmed for more than maybe 25 mins though... And it's probably not the best method :P, but it works for me.
Little Paul - - Parent #
Why not keep a notebook on the floor by the camera and just note down the time you start your practice and then when you have a "good" run, just jot down the time the run finished.
Then it should be a simple matter to find any given run.
Oscar Lindberg - - Parent #
Ahhh, I'm going to try that!
You can give handsigns to yourself for later when you watch. When scrolling through the video, you just look out for the sign.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Scream really loud, then later analyse the audio track for spikes!
That's actually quite possibly the most practical idea. Caveats obviously apply.
There's a feature for a media player I used to use called Moodbar, where it would sample an audio track into 1024 samples, and then assign R,G,B values based on low,mid,high frequencies respectively for each time sequence. So white meant loud across a wide spectrum. Blue could be a flute solo, etc. For both classical and popular music, this did a remarkable job of making seeking to a particular section of a track much easier.
This has been around a while I think. A few years ago I read about traffic cameras that recorded a block of video on a rolling basis. The block of video would only be saved permanently when the camera picked up the sound of screeching tyres or a collision.
Turns out Google are offering something similar for home surveillance called Nest Cam (which previously was much more appropriately named "Drop Cam"). It can link up to an optional cloud recording service which records everything continuously & saves it to a remote server. You can configure the software to place markers on a timeline when the camera detects motion or sound that is outside the normal background noise. So you could set the camera to listen for you shouting. Then go to your computer, log in to your account & review the clips around the markers. Sounds very bandwidth intensive to me but interesting all the same.
So who is going to be the first convention to have one of these set up in the main juggling hall?
Alan and Sadie do erratic dancing when they get a good run, then watch through the footage really fast later on. The dancing also makes for good outtakes.
https://youtu.be/OFlYfCEeYPA
lukeburrage - - Parent #
Okay, here's how to do it. Every time you get a good run, or a trick you want to keep, go and stop the camera, but hold your hand in front of the lens so you see your thumb up, indicating there is something good just before it.
Now, here's the real tip. When you begin recording again, hold your hand in front pointing to the left, as seen by the camera, or pointing up. This means that when you copy all the videos onto your laptop, you'll get loads of files showing thumbnails images. Those images are often the first frame of the video.
So when you look at the column of video file thumbnails, your finger will be pointing at the previous video, telling you to check the end of that previous video. The thumbs up at the end of that previous video is a sign that you're heading in the right direction, then skim back 30 seconds, and you'll be in the right place.
This is, objectively, the best way to communicate with your future self.
I've made up more simple sign language for myself too. If I get a good trick, but then try again a few more times, then decide to stop but don't want the last trick in the video, I don't hold my thumb up. I hold up three or four fingers, to tell myself to rewind back through three or four attempts to get to the trick I want. A shaky hand means check the trick, but it might not be clean or useful. That kind of thing.
noslowerdna - - Parent #
Good recommendations, I do something very similar to manage my video clips.
Default is keep the last run so I just stop the camera with no thumbs up. Will point to the left at the end if the best run is somewhere in the middle but I was greedy trying for an even better one that didn't happen. A big X with my forearms at the end if the clip is trash containing nothing worth saving. If I later change my mind about an X'd clip, will wave my arms frantically at the end of some future clip and explain aloud which one to rescue.
Stephen Meschke - - Parent #
I am writing a program that uses computer vision and machine learning to count the number of catches per run.
I am currently working on a Small talk post about it. Does anyone have questions? Does anyone have anything to contribute?
Here is a screenshot of writing and testing the code:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7QqDexrxSfwd1VFdGE5SjctYWc/view?usp=sharing
Here is a link to the video that I am using for testing:
https://youtu.be/IjfXrr5K61c
Thom Wall speaking sense again in his latest post: Making things interesting - the act without skills test
If any of you more talented video editors fancy a project sometime, how about taking a famous act & editing out all the skills to see what's left?
Owen Greenaway - - Parent #
I slightly feel that this is suggesting you make a piece of theatre first and then add your skill to it. It's kind of implying you can't have a good circus performance without the character/theatre.
I loved Toby Walkers' performance at the BJC a few years ago. It was pure technical back to back skill but it was a variety of skills so that kept it engaging. It was also just at such a high level that it could hold its own.
I guess he is answering the question for performers who want to make routines for the general public rather than people like me, obsessed jugglers.
Little Paul - - Parent #
That's not what I took away from the article at all.
Yes Thom is talking about building an act that works for audiences beyond the tiny market of juggling convention stages - but he's not talking about "build the theatre first, skills aren't important"
At its heart, he's outlining a technique for implementing something that lots of people have been trying desperately to get jugglers putting together an act to understand.
"Fill the stage, vary the pace"
Look at any great, high skill act (take gatto as an example) and look at *where* on the staff the juggling happens. It's not routed to one spot, it moved around the visual space.
Is it all fast, high impact, tricktricktricktrick ... or is there a shape to the energy in the routine? Are there peaks and troughs, applause points, breathing space for the audience?
I think that even if you went back and analysed Toby's performance with this I mind there would be more going on than you realised.
Toby has worked with the gandinis. Sean very much gets this stuff, I would be surprised if none of it had ever rubbed off on Toby.
Owen Greenaway - - Parent #
Maybe I focused on this one section from the article too much: "The idea is simple – if an act’s choreography can hold an audience’s interest without any of the skills it was written with, won’t it be that much stronger when the choreography is done with the skills as well?"
I believe that if you removed the props from Toby's act it wouldn't "hold an audience’s interest". That's all I'm saying.
I didn't mean to imply that Toby's act wasn't well crafted with all the things you mentioned.
Try & apply the same thought to another discipline that maybe you are not so passionate about. For example watch this famous clip of Fred Astaire & Ginger Rogers, but try to ignore the tap dancing.
https://youtu.be/mxPgplMujzQ
It's a tap dance routine that is, "pure technical back to back skill" but see how they use facial expressions & gestures to tell a story, see the changes in pace, the changes from close & open holds & space between the two of them, changes from dancing on the spot to fast galloping steps, see how they use the whole floor & the rails around it to create interest.
New option for post display
Go to Settings > Post display. Your new choices are: 'Show post content first' or 'Show meta info first'. While this is wrong & marks the decline of the Edge it will play nice with the various post collapsing options.
#newfeature
I've deliberately kept out of the big discussion that is going on but I've been keeping a very close track of what is being said. I think it's good that people are venting frustrations, I think the fact that people are passionate enough to care is a good thing. I really appreciate all the feedback both good & bad, & I thank everyone for all the compliments too.
I think a number of people think Luke is attacking the Edge but I really don't think this is the case. Luke is saying he likes the content but doesn't like the presentation, but he understands that the content is a product of the presentation. A frustration that I can sympathise with. I have a similar relationship with Facebook. I find using Facebook almost physically painful, but I use it because it is the only way I can communicate with some of my friends.
When I closed down Big talk I thought very hard for a long time about renaming Small talk to simply 'forum'. The word forum is still generally understood to mean a public place for people to gather & communicate that we've had since the Roman empire. However, through use on the internet it has come to mean PHPBB (& clones). Which I think is a great shame because there is so much experimentation that could be done with forum software but this is stifled by overwhelming preconceptions of what a forum should be. I still think of Small talk as a permanent chatroom. There is a definite split between people who 'get' what that means & people who don't. I try my best to accomodate those who don't get it because there really is no viable alternative (Although perhaps Object Episodes will be that alternative?), but I'm doing so without adversely affecting the Edge's emphasis on content above all else.
I hope people understand that the Edge is a tiny niche site. I'm trying to win attention from behemoth attention grabbing sites like Facebook, Twitter & Reddit. There have been many juggling related PHPBB variant forums that have been & gone (you'd think we'd learn from that :P) so I believe I have no choice but to be different. Following the herd is simply not an option for me. There is very little about the Edge that is not present or absent by design. I spent over 2 hours deliberating over simply changing 'lost password' to 'reset password' for example. Putting the meta information last was a very deliberate decision made very early on that I believe has many positive effects which I've talked about before. I've added this latest option because it is the one stand out feature from the Object Episodes thread that seems to be causing the most friction but if quality dips this option is coming straight back out again!
There will be other changes coming but slowly & very carefully. I think it is obvious to all now that the Edge has grown to a stage where making any change will delight someone & anger another.
Despite everything that has been said, from my experience of running the Edge I don't believe forum software is anywhere near as important as people think. Object Episodes is the first new juggling website that I've felt 'threatened' by, but certainly not because of Discourse.
JackJuggles - - Parent #
Thanks for keeping us updated. But I haven't been on the edge for too long, so may I ask what big talk was?
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Another forum page, but only for serious deep discussions. So deep, that if you wanted to post, you were forced to give yourself 24h to rethink your message :). It was an interesting concept, but didn't really add much..
As I first understood it, Big was for the weightier discussion with fuller more thought out posts, while Small was more in the style of b3ta etc: somewhere where it's not so important to read everything - Small posts would be shorter, more conversational, more contemporaneous, but still less transient than a chat format while Big would be the place where it would have been seemed important to keep track of everything. The puzzle of how to get people to use Big talk in a different way was never really answered, which is why it is no more.
But that was when the IJDb was still running and the Edge was another place, not the lifeboat it became. The Edge caught a lot of people looking for an IJDb replacement, which in a way is of course a Good Thing, but I think it's also caused confusion somewhere between the site's intended direction and the users' perceived/desired intended direction. Though now I've said all that, I don't think I have a clear idea what that direction should be!
And I just used the post button which is currently at the top of my posts. Wrong. I'll be setting that back to how it was!
lukeburrage - - Parent #
I too changed to the new setting for about 20 seconds before switching back.
Jon, this new "feature" of having a setting to change the position of a line of text and links from one place to another is a perfect example of why I haven't given feedback like this in the past. You put in work to change it, added options and stuff, but the solution was never going to be anything to do with moving or adding to a line of text and links with more text and links. Asking users to make choices between their least un-favourite non-functionality isn't a design solution, it's the opposite of a design solution.
Little Paul - - Parent #
What's Thom done to deserve that?
lukeburrage - - Parent #
No it isn't fun. That's my point. Which is why I didn't want to tell someone with a totally different design sensibility than mine that I think most of his choices are ugly. And why I also said the site is holding up fine as it is now for those who use it, and big changes aren't needed. I don't want half hearted changes, I want a consistent and unified vision of the site, even if those design choices don't align with mine, because at least then I can put on a different brain when using the site and it all makes sense. Falling half way between what Jon wants and what I want leads to compromises like what he just implemented, which is ends up being just shit.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
And in case anyone thinks I'm being too harsh, Jon agrees with me. He said up in that first post:
"While this is wrong & marks the decline of the Edge..."
I'm just agreeing with Jon. Him making changes based on my feedback is wrong and marks a decline.
"Him making changes based on my feedback is wrong and marks a decline."
Jon is this true? I always thought you welcomed feedback.
I honestly don't see how it's a decline. Making iterative changes based on user feedback is a staple of Lean Software Development which is becoming more widely adopted at startups and have been proven to be quite successful in the industry.
I think that changing a few things based on user feedback is fine, but adding new features or options based on a few users is not always good because it leads to feature creep and over-complexity.
I'll agree with feature creep. I've enough issues with that at work where we have features all over the place, most configurable, but barely documented... and then over 28 different permutations for our various customers! As long as it's managed sensibly it's fine... but in a company where legacy code is rampant, it's a nightmare :(
No, I was being facetious. A fact Luke may have missed due to this forum's lack of graphical smiley support. I have found some truly awful looking images & will be working on that tonight.
I do always welcome feedback & I made this change based on feedback from Daniel, who explicitly asked for this feature a number of weeks ago (& he certainly wasn't the first), plus Richard who also explicitly asked for it, then Dee, Chris & yourself who all voiced agreement with it. This represents a sizeable proportion of the active contributors to this site which tells me it is worth offering the option. I have not changed anything for all the lurkers who vastly outnumber members because I want the majority of people to view this site how I want them to see it. Luke has not requested or said anything other than he doesn't like the format.
There are lots of features I have refused & can't see myself ever implementing - avatars, signatures, thread titles, categorisation of threads, editing posts for example, all of which will fundamentally change the dynamic of the site. There are many more. There are lots of features on the Edge that I don't personally like but have implemented but only really because I've been able to do so in a way that doesn't adversely affect the essence of the Edge. These features are notably the index view (which is absolutely the wrong way to use this site!), timed toss juggling records, the WYSIWYG & Markdown post composition methods, allowing contact details to be optional in the clubs & events sections. There may or may not have been features on this site that I have implemented purely to prove that they won't work. This may be one of them, who knows?!
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
I myself use the 'parent on top' version, that has the rest of the metadata below. I do want to know who wrote something, posts just don't make much sense to me without that context, but I like the reply button underneath ;)
Ooh, that sounds exactly what I'd like.... do you have a link to the style sheet needed for that?
Thanks
I've switched to showing meta data first and probably won't switch back. Thanks.
I'm trying to understand exactly what your talking about. Though you're right it's not design, it's UX.
Richard Loxley - - Parent #
"Putting the meta information last was a very deliberate decision made very early on that I believe has many positive effects which I've talked about before"
I think I missed that discussion (or forgot it) - can you direct me to it, or briefly summarise?
I like having the poster name first. I'm not so bothered about the rest of the meta data - which probably actually makes more sense at the end of the post - is that the reasoning?
Briefly, I believe what is said is more important than who says it. Having names & avatars encourages people to pick out & only read posts from their friends or internet celebrities. It doesn't encourage you to get to know new people or challenge your preconceived ideas. Only picking out the people you want to read is like only watching Fox news. Skipping over new people or people you don't know is simply disrespectful which doesn't lead to a cohesive community. Without having any initial information of who wrote what you are forced to make an initial judgement based on the content rather than the author.
That's a good point, of which I never even considered people do! Personally since I have a hard time understanding what people write I find it helps to know who wrote it first so I can get load their quirks before parsing (I think similar to what Luke said about reading various peoples convention reviews).
I think the anonymous-ish system can break down at scale, when you start to attract people who are trollish or generally engaging in undesirable behaviour that needs discouraging.
The idea that everyone's contributions are equally valuable, presented in good faith and should be read as such makes a lot of sense in a small community, but it tends to break down in a larger one, because bad actors take advantage of it. At that scale, having stronger identity (even if pseudonymous) places a premium on reputation, which discourages assholery and makes it easier to detect trolls when they show up.
Luckily, not a problem we have here right now, thank goodness for that.
But when you scale even further (eg /. and reddit's largest subs), then you no longer have much chance at judging based on usernames.
The "community" is then so big, that users might as well be anonymous.
It's no surprise that both systems mentioned have some sort of user "moderation", where moderation is less about editing or removing content, but rather helping to filter signal above noise, or to remove noise from signal (where "noise" is usually trollish or unpopular viewpoint, and "signal" is usually some joke or funny picture).
Reddit is an absolutely fascinating example of community failure at large scale, I think! It also has an even larger scale problem, in that you can discuss whether an individual sub is a well functioning community according to that sub's own set of "values", but then there's the issue of whether that's functioning well as a part of the whole. I.e. /r/creepshots or whatever it was, you could say that was well functioning on its own terms, but extremely harmful to Reddit as a whole.
Luckily the actual physical juggling community is small enough that I don't think it's possible to scale up that many orders of magnitude.
I agree - I was just making the point that small to medium sized community transitions might need to do one thing, but medium to large will almost certainly have different problems and different solutions.
I was also thinking more of reddit as a platform - designed to work with communities of a certain size, rather than the community itself.
I think the design choices of Reddit greatly inform the nature of the communities that end up there, like water takes on the shape of the container you put it in. (yes I know, not all subreddits, etc etc).
So there's some interesting commonalities and emergent behaviour caused by the design, and I think that does very much give Reddit a personality as a whole, and that personality is repulsive, despite the odd mostly pleasant corner.
I think it's particularly interesting that the early-internet-days emphasis on the technological paradise of "freedom of speech" has shaped a lot of early communities into places where you have the opposite of freedom of speech, because it turns out that nasty fuckers (and also karma trolls) shout the loudest and drown out everyone else. It's like aiming for this goal can literally cause the opposite thing to happen. The emergent behaviours of the internet are fascinating.
Cedric Lackpot - - Parent #
I bet you wish you hadn't started this thread now ...
I'm gonna chip in a contrarian opinion here, but first a disclaimer: I've never much liked The Edge's layout and that has contributed to me using it rather less than I ever did rec.juggling, so I'm not actually a refusenik but it's fair to say it has never sat particularly well with me.
Now, to the beef:-
Why on earth are you trying to engineer/influence the style of discourse? Why do you not possess the confidence to allow the established community here to develop their own preferred ways of communicating here? I really don't understand why you feel the need to nudge the membership this way and that. I don't see why you should suppress, for instance, the hypothetical desire of users to scan posts by looking at avatars? I hate avatars btw, but I acknowledge the right of other people to choose to use them, and that is also true of how I feel about attempts to engineer the way people use things.
The Edge is already the most verbose, most considered, and - dare I say it - most British forum don'cha know, what what? I can't think of a membership less in need of social engineering.
I understand your aspirations for the way The Edge works; I don't understand why that entails implicitly stifling other emergent behaviours. Personally I would prefer it done the way the Dutch make footpaths - build the infrastructure, leave people to beat down their preferred route, then build the paths - they are called 'desire lines' or 'desire paths' I believe.
I'm having a vaguely similar argument in another place, and my feeling there is also that it's okay to encourage behaviour, but not to require it - if you want a mature community then trust your participants.
Disclaimer 2: I think you've done a great job here and I'm grateful for it. There are good reasons why it's not entirely my cup of tea and I'm completely comfortable with that, as I'm sure you are with what I hope is another dollop of constructive criticism to throw on the pile.
Thanks for reading.
I think shaping discourse on sites like this is 100% vital. Design decisions make all the difference between somewhere that you can have a decent discussion, somewhere that you go to post cat pictures and LOL, and somewhere that you go to engage in vicious snark and piss all over everyone else.
To put it another way, the discourse is shaped by the site design whether you like it or not, and ignoring that fact is just absolving responsibility for the results.
As an example, Orin has done a remarkable job of discouraging spammers and drive by trolls, and it's a direct result of these efforts that we can have this discussion now. The desire lines of the internet lead directly to penis enlargement adverts. Sorry.
My thoughts exactly. It's not just design either, it's the content I post & when I post it, it's responding to users quickly, it's handling all the people who ignore the big red warning message when they use the contact form, it's tracking down & getting information from people who hide within Facebook for people who can't get hold of them & considerably more besides.
Clackers, what sites do you use that you think don't influence discourse through design? What do you think the difference is between my efforts to influence discussion through design & your work as a moderator at r/juggling?
Thank you both for appreciating my efforts.
Cedric Lackpot - - Parent #
Forgive me if I make a few points in no particular order :-
1. /r/juggling
I'm a lazy fecker and I've always tried to keep /r/juggling down to a minimum of effort for me. Although we have a small mod team, in practice I do the greater share of the trifling amount of mod work. And to be honest it represents a tiny amount of effort, mostly assigning link flair, and approving the majority of spam messages (of which there are typically single digits each month) which prove to be falsely flagged. I've always tried to draw a clear line between moderation and curation, and in my time as a mod there I have not had to deal with any issue I would regard as more than trifling.
The small community there has formed itself, with little input from me other than the occasional appeal to users not to report stuff they simply don't like - lookin' atchoo Norbi, with your circus shorts - and instead exercise a bit of self-moderation. I think it's a reddit-type place which appeals to a certain kind of conversation which might not readily translate to other sites, but it really is pleasantly surprising how well it regulates itself and manages to achieve a high s/n ratio.
In short I have tried to prevent things which are unequivocally out of order, but otherwise take a very laissez-faire approach and allow the sub to develop its own character. Thus far it seems to have worked after a fashion - it's not exciting or controversial or high-traffic, but it rubs along nicely.
2. The Edge
In the case of The Edge you have explained your careful thinking about what general behaviours you wish to encourage, for example in the way that people should be nudged towards reading deeply before seeking a reply button, yet we have examples of users who find that a minor frustration. Consequently there is a dissonance there - you trying to promote thoughtful perusal vs. users with their own aspirations. It implies that the corpus of users does not entirely share your vision, even if they approve of the general intent. But please be aware that these criticisms are very gentle, The Edge is not on its last legs or anything.
3. The effect of design
I cannot provide an example of a truly neutral environment and I regard it as pretty much a given that site design will influence the way users interact, and therefore the kind of users who choose to do so, but in my opinion that doesn't mean that a forum should actively set out to shape the discourse. As far as possible it is preferable to subtract only that which is plainly out of scope, but not necessarily to guide the thing in a particular direction.
rec.juggling is/was a great example - newsreaders were just too bloody difficult for many people to wrap their heads around until the IJDb came along and made it accessible. It turned out that r.j the forum was actually really good, but r.j the newsgroup interface not so much. In neither case, USENET being USENET, was there any guidance exerted over the direction of the group other than by its users, and the design differences of the two interfaces were thrown into stark relief when r.j withered the moment the IJDb keeled over. And even so the r.j example suggests that design had more of an effect on usability than on use.
And Big Talk was another example. You invited users to behave in a certain way, they tried it for a while but it didn't really work out, it got pulled and we all moved on. To my mind that was an excellent piece of evolution in which a space was created for a purpose but it proved not to be effective enough because of members' failure to occupy the Big Talk space.
Emily also strongly supports the guiding hand of design but I find her rather bleak outlook unfamiliar unless you make a point of visiting /b/, stormfront, /r/gonewild, rotten.com, YouTube comment threads, or no end of phpBB rant groups, it's just not my experience of lightly regulated special interest groups.
I guess the key difference is that I find it very difficult to justify imposing an ethos, while you find it a little difficult not to; you have a vision of what The Edge should strive to be, whereas I worry about what you might unwittingly be stifling.
4. Factoids!
Did you know that I read very little of what goes into /r/juggling? It turns out I'm much more mod than user, because I find it more interesting that way I guess. Did you also know that I at least skim pretty much every post on The Edge? Granted it is very often the most perfunctory skimming - bad Clackpot, naughty Clackpot! - yet it still attracts my eye far more than the place I oversee.
Did you know that /r/juggling is going backwards fast right now? Neither did I until I went and looked at the traffic stats while writing this post. It was bumbling along nicely for a good while and then for some reason pageviews and uniques have dipped very markedly since the turn of the year, like on the order of 50%. I have no idea why, and to be honest I don't much care - I'd much rather think that it was a small community relevant to its few users (which I believe it is) than a large one full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. My impression is that The Edge is similar, we can both leave the dick-waving to Juggling Rock and so on :-P
These factoids are not intended to lead to any conclusion.
5. Crikey
Um, that was a long post. Please share/subscribe/like/+1/upvote if you have read this far!
I've not strayed into the territory of making my own suggestions for The Edge - but markdown and editable posts would be a fucking godsend - and I've really enjoyed the opportunity to thrash out my own ideas into a semi-coherent form. That's a win by Edge standards innit? I'd x-post this to /r/juggling but I'm really not sure I can see the point.
Over and out.
A well thought out & interesting post with lots to think about, a definite win in my book. Thank you for taking the time.
Couple of minor points:
The idea that rec.juggling died with the IJDb came up on Object Episodes too, but rec.juggling was declining in popularity a few years before the IJDb closed down.
Markdown is already an available option, see under Settings > Post composition.
I must admit that when I put the IJDb together there was much less competition, I'm pretty sure that the only active discussion forum was rec.juggling with people using dedicated usenet news software to access it. I only had two real choices for how to bring discussion to the IJDb website, (1) create my own phpBB backed forum, or (2) try to bring rec.juggling to the web.
As I was already an active member of r.j. (2) was the only decent option. This required writing a lot of code, which was an added bonus ;-)
The fact that I was building on top of USENET news very much shaped the interface I created. Discussions had to be threaded, and tree-like. People were used to being able to mark articles as read, etc ...
Things are very different now, we have a much better understanding of user experience and how to design effective web interfaces. Furthermore, you don't have to build nearly as much from scratch these days. There are some really great forum solutions (discourse is one of them), you no longer have to build your own authentication solutions, technologies like bootstrap allow you to tame CSS, ...
While it is easier to build basic websites these days, user expectations are much greater, thanks to the likes of Facebook.
Anyhow, I'm rambling a little now.
I think comparing Small Talk to Discourse and Jay's new site is a little unfair. From what I understand Orinoco has quite different design principles, and a number of the Small Talk users agree. This is very much a personal thing.
I do however think that the usability of this forum could be improved, without compromising its minimalist approach. A better site to compare this forum to is Hacker News:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9736446
I think one general area where Small Talk falls down a little is conventions. Users are inherently lazy, we like familiarity and patterns. It's much better if your forum follows a user's mental model of how forums work, rather than them having to learn the way your forum system works.
A few quick points ...
+ When someone has read a forum message and wants to perform some form of action, what is this most likely to be? reply! Currently you display "Parent, Reply, Bookmark, Mark as unread" in that order.
+ I rarely want to know the exact date and time that a message has been posted, rather, just how recent it is. Interfaces that display 'posted just now', '1 hour ago', '3 days ago' are much easier to comprehend (time calculations are hard to do in your head!)
+ I'm not convinced that tree-like forum structures are the best. As discussions fragment it can be much harder to navigate the various leaves.
I'd be happy to provide some more suggestions.
Anyhow, great job, keep it up!
I've not seen Hacker News before. Initially the layout is great, however they commit the heinous crime of using a character that is usually associated with being able to "rollup"/"hide"/"accordion"/"fold" posts, which would aid in making their theading more readable. This is a major feature of the edge that really helps reading long content when being dyslexic.
Agreed about the time. Especially when we have people all over the world using the Edge, it's nice to have a "lazy" time display at least for a day or two. There are loads of JS libraries that would do it simply.
When someone has read a forum message and wants to perform some form of action, what is this most likely to be? reply! Currently you display "Parent, Reply, Bookmark, Mark as unread" in that order.
I've recorded what links get clicked & you would be completely wrong!
The most used links by far are the 'Next unread' when available followed by 'Mark as read' (or the user double clicks the bottom right quadrant of the message).
Most users tend to hover their mouse over the main navigation of a web page but because I don't really have much (another conscious design choice), because most people are right handed, because most (all?) browsers put their scroll bars on the right & because post content often forms an 'F' shape leaving a blank space ripe for double/long clicking in the bottom right hand corner of each post Edge users tend to hover their pointer on the right hand side of the screen. Phone/tablet users hold their device in their left hand & perform gestures with their dominant right hand, or they hold their phone in their right hand & have to reach from the right hand side with their thumb. So having the most important links last & therefore closer to the right turns out to be more efficient for mouse users & means touch device users don't have to cover the screen with their hand when they reach over to the left of the screen. I should have that line of text right aligned but because of the changing nature of what links can appear a left aligned paragraph results in more consistent positioning.
Positioning important links first is not always optimal, for further evidence of this hands up everyone who has only recently discovered the existence of the 'Parent' link!
Through common use I believe these two links are used on autopilot. Although the 'Previous read' & 'Mark thread as read' links are rarely used they are positioned with these links by association of function.
The next most popular links are 'Parent' (in spite of its apparent inconspicuousness) then 'Reply'. These two actions are comparatively rare, so by the time the user has decided to make one of these actions they have already snapped out of autopilot & are looking for the controls to perform the new action. When looking for something new you generally start from the beginning which is why these two links are first & second after the permalink, name & timestamp (which are first by convention).
Eagle eyed Edgenaughts may have noticed that the Parent & Reply links have swapped places a few times over the lifetime of the Edge!
The 'Bookmark' link is by far the least important link which is why it is in the least important position in the middle. People often remember the first & last act in a show, the same principal applies to controls.
Even if there is a more optimal configuration though it is too late to change because users have become accustomed to the positions of these links, & any change to the meta info causes a lot of turmoil.
It's interesting you mention the importance of the timestamps. I never use them unless I'm debugging myself. I can easily judge the freshness by the fact that it is new so it will have been posted in the last 24 hours, but I can see how for less regular visitors wouldn't have this feel for the conversation. Do you perceive messages posted 'just now' differently from those posted an hour ago? If so how & why?
On your last point as time goes on I strangely find myself agreeing. When I first started the vast majority of the audience I wanted to attract had long been championing fully threaded discussion as the best format so it was the only choice. This is very unlikely to ever change though because it would fundamentally alter the dynamic of the site.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
This is what fascinates me about this discussion. You have this data about your line of text links, and it's impossible to argue against your conclusions if we all start with the premise that the best form of presenting a set of possible actions to a reader is by a line of text links following on from the post metadata, and that readers are now used to that order. Your case is flawless.
First, the order is not known to me, and I have to search each time I want to click anything. I guess "next unread" is always the last thing on the list, but when it isn't there, I read each link in order, left to right, to find what I want to do. When I am hitting next unread a number of times, I stop reading the last link and keep clicking, which means at the last unread post I hit "previous unread" without thinking, and go up the page. If I'm tired I get stuck in a loop with the last two unread posts.
Second, the order, or at least the place on the screen, is not constant at all. As the threads get thinner, all the links move to the right on the screen. On my phone the screen is narrow enough that there is a line break, and then the right-most link is typically "bookmark". But that can change due to something as undetermined as the user name of the author.
Third, due to the line break on a smaller screen, and tapping with my finger, and the reduced text size, and the fact that now the links are clustered one above the other, it's super annoying to tap the link I want rather than something else.
Fourth, that some links are there sometimes and not others means that my brain has to keep up with what state the post is in to instinctively move a finger or mouse pointer to the right position... which I don't do. I just read the links in order.
My main concern is that you seem to think that the best reference point for where a text link in a line of text links appears on the page is relative to the line of text links itself (yet the number of links change), and the position of the line of text links is determined by the width of the post and the number of characters in the username.
To be helpful, here are some ideas for a solution:
The maximum number of links will be six, so have ALL six options displayed each time, but grey out the options that are not available for each post. This way a user never has to remember the state of the post to be able to work out which options are available, they will be unambiguously clear at the first glance, with no searching for an option that isn't there.
By greying out the unavailable options, the position of each link will always be exactly relative to the other links.
Next, have the links on a different line than the post metadata. This means that relative to the post itself, the links will always be in the same position, not sometimes floating further to the right depending on user name length.
Separating the links and the metadata also means you can have a sensible fix to the metadata at the top of the post problem. I want the name (and date/time since the post was made) at the top, but my biggest problem was that the obvious and only place for the links is at the bottom. If you want both at the bottom, great, but for me (and it seems many others) we want the metadata at the top, but the links should stay at the bottom.
Next, instead of separating by a comma, separate by white space more than two very narrow characters wide. This makes them way easier and distinguishable touch targets.
Lastly, make six identically wide divs, each one sixth of the width of the bottom of each post. Put one link in each div, and make the entire div a link/touch target. The divs can still all be white, and the possible links blue, so it fits the overall style of the website, but make the div background change colour on mouse-over along with underlining the blue text to indicate the link does something.
On a smaller screen, allow text wrapping WITHIN the div, don't wrap the links to another line. This will make the link divs two text lines high, but on a small screen this is a good thing, as it presents bigger touch targets, rather than bunching two different touch targets on top of each other.
All this means that users won't have to read the links at all. They will truly be able to make actions on the post purely by the position of each link. To get to the next unread post, they never have to move their mouse left or right at all! They just keep clicking the right-most bottom sixth of each post until that option is greyed out and doesn't work any more. Clicking the left-most sixth of the bottom of the post will always take them to the parent. If there is no parent, clicking the left-most link won't do anything.
So something like this:
# by Orinoco, 2015-06-19 00:06 Parent, Reply, Bookmark, Mark as read, Previous unread, Next unread
Becomes something like this (on a wide screen and though ignore the dots, they are only included because the code html thing isn't keeping multiple spaces or tabs):
Orinoco or longer name .Two hours ago . . . . . Post permalink
Parent . . . . . . . . .Reply . . . . . . . . . Bookmark . . . . . . . .Mark as read . . . . . .Previous unread . . . . Next unread . . . . .
I hope this explains what I'm getting at when I say solutions don't have to be based around lines of comma separated text links.
Now, see that's useful feedback, thank you. I'll have a play with it tonight.
Now I just need to work out whether you want me to implement that or not...
lukeburrage - - Parent #
Go for it. Any one or combination of the ideas should work. Take it as far as you want to go while it still fits with your mental model of the site.
After about an hour of tinkering & several hours of staring at the screen:
(dead link)
None of the double/long click, collapsible thread, highlighted siteswaps or inline reply options will work there yet.
I've tried to make the buttons inconspicuous but useable, but I'm looking at this new layout & thinking, "welcome to the Edge, the place where you can look at hundreds of bloody buttons!" For long posts it is not that much of a problem, but I think it ruins one liners eg. (dead link) which I'm not sure what to do about.
On the plus side though I found having lots of disabled next/previous unread buttons within unread messages didn't make sense so I rewrote the whole system, now you can jump to unread messages from anywhere which is pretty nice. The enabling/disabling of these buttons now updates when marking messages as read/unread via ajax calls too which is also a big improvement. Interestingly working out the approximate time elapsed since a message was posted is considerably faster than converting a timestamp to a user's timezone. I had no idea converting between timezones was so expensive. On pages with hundreds of posts this can cut page processing time in half.
I like the changes! Although the buttons are way too prominent and distract from the content;
i experimented a little with my user-css plugin and made a screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/FOdq1kl.png
Yes, my problem exactly. Your example is very similar to what I came up with for myself too!
lukeburrage - - Parent #
This also looks good.
But why why why why is there still a "#" floating around at the top? It's the single ugliest character on the keyboard, and you're making everyone look at it all the time. It was bad enough before, when it was in front of every name, but now it is at the top of every post. It stands out way too much for its current job. And hashes have other jobs too, like hash tags, so it's confusing anyway. Google to see what other symbols or icons sites use to show permanent links.
While you're at it, change the comma between the user name and the time to a space dot space as well. And grey out the time a bit so it's not as heavy as the name. And another space dot space between the time and the permanent link too.
Between us we can make this forum nicer to look at and easier to use :)
lukeburrage - - Parent #
That's a good start. It's already
Now make them not-buttons. Set the link borders to zero so they just appear as text, not as buttons. Also set the margins between the links to zero, so there is no no-man's-land between them. Make the link text justified to the right, so the "parent" link text lines up with the user name and the post text.
If you want to keep the full target area of the link visible, you can always make them slightly darker grey than the background. This will be way more subtle than thin black outlines.
Are you going to make the approximate time show the exact time with a mouseover? I find that handy on other forums, but I understand if you think it's not worth it due to performance hits.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
It's already way better, I was going to say. A way to edit a post up to a certain time, even 5 minutes or until someone replies, would be super handy too.
Another forum I frequent lets you edit for five minutes after posting, but the edit form has a big warning saying that edits are only allowed for typos. If you edit for content, moderators shout at you.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
Harsh! I use a forum that allows a 30 minute editing window, and there have been zero issues so far. That's not threaded, but because this forum is threaded you can deny edits after someone clicks the "reply" link.
I just want to edit for times like that where I don't finish a sentence or something else goes a bit wrong but I only spot it once I hit the post button and it's already submitting the post.
Well, following that to the letter we get this (dead link) or this (dead link), which demonstrate why I went with borders & centred text.
I think the only thing we can take away from this branch is that disabling inapplicable links is better than not displaying them.
Which takes us onto Julius' branch.
I did Google permalink characters & the most commonly used symbol is #. Other common symbols are pilcrows ¶ which will make anyone involved in print design ragequit & never come back, infinity signs ∞ which has the same effect on mathematicians & needs to be rendered in a much bigger font than the rest of the message to be legible, or the section symbol § which has the same font size problem. I quite like the idea of ⚓ for the connotation of permanence but it is not supported in Webkit browsers. All 3 alternatives have font dependency issues too so I can't guarantee they will be displayed.
Verson 5 (dead link) has the controls back to text links, I've changed comma separator to a dash (the interpunct or middot that I believe Julius is using makes me think of scalar products), hovering over a disabled link now displays the less jarring default cursor. This version uses the time text as the permalink like Twitter. I really don't like this because every other link on Small talk tells you where you will go or what it will do, but clicking on '2 days ago' doesn't take you back in time.
Will deal with editing posts later.
Will probably offend someone's sensibilities, and perhaps have scalability issues, but what about something like https://patternry.com/static/images/chain.png
for permalink?
lukeburrage - - Parent #
That's why I wrote "Google to see what other symbols or icons sites use to show permanent links" which I hoped would bring up something like that example.
Or why not just use the word "permalink" as the rest of the action links are descriptions of their use. I wasn't actually sure what the # was used for until I got to this thread. (Sorry, I'm pretty lazy at looking at the anchor text and I don't think I can on a mobile device.)
Is onmouseover still a thing or has tablet killed that function?
Could the # have "permalink" appear when you mouse over it and maybe Parent have "Show which post this is replying to" (if that is not too long) to help those who are not sure what they mean (assuming they think to mouse over them).
lukeburrage - - Parent #
I think the time shouldn't be the link to the post. Just add another link in the row at the bottom that says "Permalink".
I like Verson 5 and I vote for keeping the #. It is the best option and it looks great.
Owen Greenaway - - Parent #
I also like version 5
Me too, & a number of people have voted via email as well. I've tweaked a few more things, updated all the small collapse options to work with the new layout & folded the changes back in to the main branch (if you have any problems clearing cache will probably fix it).
That's it, no more posts about the design of the site (outside of Meta talk) until July. Because let's face it everyone is bored of it.
(Or does that count as stifling the community?)
I've been watching and wondering why people cared so much. It works fine and is easy. But now the "go to next unread" link has gone and I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more. Please ignore my 3rd sentence as clear nonsense except the bit about that really useful link vanishing. PS thanks for doing a useful site.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
like
Mike Moore - - Parent #
This is beautiful. I partiuclarly like the greater availability of next unread, which is how I got here.
Scott Seltzer - - Parent #
Definite improvements. Two thumbs up from me.
Thanks so much for implementing these changes :)
I now have the name of the person at the top of the post so I can put what is written into context immediately, and actions below the post, encouraging (at least some) reading before replying.
Go raibh maith agat.
Little Paul - - Parent #
It's going to take a little time for me to retrain my "I've got to the end of the post, who was it by again?" reflex, but on the whole I like the new layout.
For what it's worth, I would prefer it if you didn't give in on the subject of editing messages. People deal with systems all the time which don't allow editing, whether it be emails to your boss, or whatever - if people want to care about whether something is right, then people should either take the time and effort to check what they write, or use the preview function (see my meta post for my view that preview in quick reply could be improved).
The only problem at present is when someone encounters a bug, or other unexpected behaviour due to their HTML or markdown input settings (e.g. my recent experience with greater than / less than symbols).
I doubt I'm the only person who doesn't want posts to be editable*
*beyond that by squirrels, which, whilst dangerous, is currently done with a reasonable level of discretion.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
As for the time stamp, I don't mind if it shows a date and time or something like "3 hours ago".
I prefer a specific time but only if the post was made today. Then I only want the time, not the date. If it was posted yesterday, I want really want something saying "8am yesterday". And if it was posted more than two days ago I want the date only, not the time.
The best forums I've used have variations of this. Both Vanilla and Discourse forums show the full time and date in a standard form when hovering the mouse pointer over whatever more colloquial time is displayed.
I agree about the tree thing. It almost encourages little cliquey side discussions rather than engaging with the original point.
Although, in a non tree shaped discussion, it's very easy for a "take on all comers" kind of person to have a minor disagreement about something irrelevant that ends up consuming a thread and drowning the original topic.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
I like discussions presented as trees. My only problem with the way they are presented on this site is that there are two indications of depth, and neither is very clear. Post backgrounds get greyer as they go deeper, and also indent to the right. I think? Maybe? I know they indent slightly, but as there is no clear left edge to the page (there is always a white border to the left), once the first message in the thread is off the top of the page, there's no way to know how deep you are except by just eyballing it.
Then, on my phone, the posts get narrower and narrower until they only take up half the screen, which then feels weirdly cramped as the other half is just empty white space.
Just checking, and it turns out the deepening grey isn't an indication of tree depth, but I'm not sure why there are three different shades of grey. Then new posts are all green anyway, and that's mostly where I focus my attention. It turns out the grey background colour isn't a good indication of anything if every post I'm actively reading has a green background anyway!
I only see 2 shades of grey. I think they just alternate to make the different posts stand out more. However, as you say there's only 1 shade of green.
For making it easier to follow the tree, perhaps there could be an option of showing vertical indent lines to the left of the posts, although now that I know about the Parent link I don't think I'd need it.
It sounds like you mean something like Daniel's mockup that is posted on meta.
As for indents, there are several approaches that work. This one is clean, though could be clearer. Reddit & Slashdot both work alright, in slashdot each post is in the box of its parent. Both Slashdot and reddit also frequently have missing comments - which is a problem that we don't have to deal with here.
Of course, one common case of indentation is when coding, and I sometimes use the the "vim-indent-guides" plugin in my editor (with alternating background indent colours, though dotted lines are also options).
Post numbering systems is also something I think I mentioned before (I.e. first reply is 1, second reply is 2, first reply to the first reply is 1.1, etc).
Maybe I'll write a new CSS file when I've got some time - I also don't think that the curved borders help with messages at different levels.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
I really don't want lines or different colours for showing indentation. I certainly don't want boxes within boxes. I think I'd be happy with a way to know where the left edge of the top-most post in a thread was once it leaves the top of the visible page. That's it!
At the moment white space is used to show levels of indentation, with the reference point for your eye being? The white margin down the left side of the screen. And separating this white indentation space from the white margin? Nothing. Or maybe something white. One kind of white space and another kind of white space, both doing different jobs, are VERY hard to tell apart.
The Hacker News site is as ugly as hell, way worse than this site, but it does at least use beige and white to show the difference between what is "post" and what is "margin".
I hate beige as a background colour for posts though. Grey is slightly better, but I'd still prefer white. Green (unread posts on Small Talk) isn't great, but at least the green means something! I'm still unsure what the different grey backgrounds for Small Talk posts mean. If they are just to distinguish one post from the next, the boxes with small white space in between (and sometimes different indenting) works fine for me.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
Sometimes there are three messages in order with three decreasing shades of grey. I'm not sure what the last darkest grey colour means.
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
Hacker News is a good example of a popular site with similarish design aims to this one actually, and a good example of a site that fulfils its purpose and gets out of your way.
What would you recommend to someone who wants to buy their first diabolo? Knowing next to zero about the whole field, I only have a couple good leads on potential purchases.
I know nothing of what axle type, weight, diameter, or brand to look for... or even how much money is expected to be spent.
Owen Greenaway - - Parent #
I usually spend more on my props as I then don't need to spend more money later if I want to upgrade to better gear. I also assume that the prop will basically last forever and I might use it for hundreds of hours.
I have therefore always bought these:
https://www.firetoys.co.uk/diabolos/diabolos/mr-babache-finesse-g4-diabolo.html
and these handsticks:
https://www.firetoys.co.uk/diabolos/diabolo-handsticks/henry-s-short-aluminium-diabolo-handsticks.html
"Taibolo" diabolos also seem quite good.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Consider the large top of the range diabolos only. They are well worth it (as with any juggling prop) even if you are not a pro, as they remain very affordable.
Don't get hold of a bearing axle (sometimes called free hub), that is nothing you need to play with as a fresh beginner.
If you are going to play only indoors on nice floors:
Taibolo
Sundia
Epic
If you also want to play outdoors get a softer diabolo. Dropping a hard plastic diabolo on asphalt will leave awful scratches.
Babbache Finesse
Henrys Circus
I have always been very pleased with my Henrys circus and Henrys alluminium sticks. Once you get to play with 3 diabolos, if ever, you'll get to the point where you can start worrying about diabolo weight etc.
Special axles are overrated.
Sticks you will start to get some preferences once you play around with suicides. Many prefer carbon sticks, which are quite similar among different brands. Play has been producing the Trash sticks, though I don't know what they call them. They are quickly gaining in popularity I hear.
Carbon sticks break after some time, aluminum might last longer.
You'll have fun with any diabolo, you're a beginner after all.. Just get the one that you can get your hands on!
loganstafman - - Parent #
I sort of disagree with this post for several reasons.
First off, I think bearings are better for beginners. They spin longer with less speeding up.
Secondly, your bit about aluminum sticks is simply not right. Sure, they might be a bit less breakable, but in my 13 years of diaboloing, I've only broken carbon sticks once, and aluminum sticks hurt a LOT more, especially when you're learning basic suicides.
I disagree that special axles are overrated. My recommendation is simple. Get the Sundia triple bearing (https://www.renegadejuggling.com/Sundia-Shinning-Diabolo-p39.html), until you're ready to do multiple diabolos at once, at which point you should get several fixed-axle Taibolos.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
If I was teaching a beginner, I would ONLY give them a bearing diabolo. It's like having training wheels on a bike.
Don't forget about string. Replacing diabolo string is the most neglected part by beginners. I'm often dumfounded when I see new diabolists trying to do anything with non-bearing diabolos and scuffed up dirty string. I've only used Henrys string for a decade now, along with their aluminium handsticks, so I don't have anything else to recommend than that. The aluminium sticks use the minimum length of string on each change, because the string doesn't also run the length of each handstick on the inside.
I'd vote against bearing axles for beginners (& everyone) because you lose a lot of tactile feedback (for instance it is easier to tell that your string needs replacing with a fixed axle because it 'bites' more). Yes they will spin for longer with less effort which means they won't put in the effort to learn how to generate lots of spin. You could put a beginner racing driver in an F1 car & they would be able to go faster but they certainly wouldn't be able to control it[1].
Also if you use a bearing diabolo a lot of people will think you are a cheat!
I bought my first Henry's Circus diabolos 21 years ago. They are scuffed but still in perfect working order, never even had to tighten the bolts. The Henry's Circus set the standard for diabolos, don't go for anything smaller in size. I also agree that changing the string regularly is essential, back when I did a lot of diabolo I would change it every 2 weeks at least. I bought a 1000m reel for something like £17, a wise investment!
I'd also like to recommend Beard's nylon handsticks which are by far the best thing they've ever made. They are indestructable & have some thickness to them so they can *gasp* be seen by an audience. They do have a springy flex to them which I prefer over more rigid sticks but your preference may vary.
[1] I know in reality they probably wouldn't be able to pull away without stalling it but you get my point.
I agree with Orin, fixed axle. I'm a dinosaur though, so many will disagree with me.
I also liked the Beard flexi sticks, but I've since moved on to using the Deos ones. But as a beginner the handsticks are a squazillion times less important than the string, so save money by buying a pair of wooden handsticks, and buy some nice string as spare.
There's a whole thread of gear advice on https://diabolo.ca/forum , btw, if you want a lot more conflicting advice! ;)
loganstafman - - Parent #
I think we might disagree on what a beginner is. For example, is a basic suicide a beginner trick? I think so, in which case a pair of sticks with a whole coming out the end is going to make the trick 10x easier and 100x more elegant.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
The last thing a beginner needs is string that bites, ever. After a month or so, it's probably good to move across to normal hubs to learn the extra control and feel.
If people think I am a cheat for using bearings, I'm happy to be a cheat who hasn't had any snag or tangle or knot in the last 7 or 8 years of me performing diabolo on stage. And also a cheat who never has to worry about the diabolo even wobbling due to getting slower. Why put myself through that stress?
loganstafman - - Parent #
I totally agree with Luke. Sure you lose some tactile feedback and the ability to do the elevator, but that's really all you have to lose.
And when you DO make the transition to fixed axle for multiple diabolos, it doesn't affect you that much, because when doing multiple diabolos, each one doesn't spend much time in a wrap, so you won't get those nasty binds.
Explanation on why “Counting Escalator Steps” by Wes Peden is my favourite juggling video.
It starts with a bright light and him walking away from the camera. A glimpse of his notebook makes it clear the tricks are pre-planned and thought out. Within 11 seconds there is some juggling. Quick cuts of zoomed in juggling and lights means you’re not sure what’s happening nor where this video is going. For me that made it intriguing.
Then, bam, juggling. Lovely contrasting background with clear props. Repeated patterns with different camera angles to emphasise the different parts of each sequence. The lighting ADDS to the performance as it: makes the periphery of the shot more interesting, adds a shadow mirroring his actions and makes the juggling clear.
Cut to a section of spoken words. It’s not very clear why you are hearing these words at this point of the video but it does create a gap to breathe after 30 seconds of near constant tricks. I think it improves the pace of the video.
More juggling and a brief shot of him sitting. I like that this was included as, to me, it shows this video took time and effort to make. The cuts in time to the music and short clips of silliness make it FUN. I’ve watched quite a few videos and normally I can work out nearly exactly what pattern they are juggling nearly instantly but with the zoom and occasional lack of repetition I can’t always do that with his video. I just have a “things are happening” view of the juggling and I like that. It’s just fun.
Again the lighting is choreographed and adds to the video. It makes the running of patterns more interesting. Same with the shadows. Non-stop, hard, interesting, and well filmed tricks for a few minutes.
Music slows, cut to voice explaining why a technique in another field (writing) is so strong. It shows care of presentation, interest in learning how to create art, how to tell stories, how to entertain. All arcing back to the main theme, fun.
The music returns in time with the club hitting the well-lit wall. This perfectly jumps us back into the juggling video. 2 minutes of constant “things are happening” patterns that are fresh, technical and interesting.
Music slows, more frequent silliness; music speeds up and the video edits match. Slow music and after a long pause he does one last “something happened but I’m not sure what exactly” move showing his consistency. He then walks towards the camera which indicates it’s over and we’re left with just a light. Beautiful cyclic symmetry from the opening shot of a light and him walking away from the camera.
And that is why it is my favourite. What’s your favourite video and why?
lukeburrage - #
New Rule:
If you are doing any kind of combination trick with a hoop or ring spinning on a leg, you MUST stop that ring with you hand. If you let it stop spinning, and just dangle motionless from your leg, that is as good as dropping. Or as bad as dropping. The essence of the trick, the thing that makes it a trick, is that the story of the ring is brought to life by the hand that launches it. If you let it drop at the end, it has died. If you stop the ring with your hand, you have just ended the story.
Bob gets it right:
https://youtu.be/BsI_PAcmlnE
Tiff gets it right:
https://youtu.be/4rTp-Zce6bI
Owen Greenaway - - Parent #
I like it.
Funny you should mention this, a similar thing has bugged me for years. I've never liked how people end spinning multiple rings along their arms by clapping their arms against their sides. It feels like they are collapsing or otherwise giving up. However, I've never seen & I can't really come up with a better alternative other than throwing the outside rings up then reaching in to grab the inner rings, but I know this is not always feasible.
Little Paul - - Parent #
I quite like that as a rule, as it gives a definite end to the trick.
It feels like there could be other ends to that trick which are just as planned and final, but I canf think what they would be, but anything which is deliberate and final feels to me like it should fit.
What about sliding the stopped ring to the foot and kicking it up pancake style to catch on the head? I think that would be a good alternate ending.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
I like Bob Bramson's way of hopping out of one ring. Or whatever he does.
After 2 good examples I was hoping for a bad one.
Also I didn't know this was a new rule, I thought it was an ancient obligation!
lukeburrage - - Parent #
I didn't want to be too specific, but...
https://youtu.be/7x_6Lb15aUM
On a similar note, every run of 5 club backcrosses MUST return to cascade before doing the collect.
Anthony does it right,
Manuel does it right,
most people don't.
Reasons are different, but similar.
lukeburrage - - Parent #
I disagree entirely. That pattern is way more visible and clear to the audience if it ends with all the clubs point outward. It's a really great punctuation to a long run of 5 clubs.
I think this depends on body positioning. Anthony did his backcrosses with his back to the audience. I think when you do that, it's prettier to bring the pattern back to the cascade (usually by some half turn), but if the juggler is facing the audience, then wrapping up the backcrosses with a collect looks better to me.
My act from our midways production 2013 at AFUK. :)
https://youtu.be/7x_6Lb15aUM
Owen Greenaway - - Parent #
Thanks for posting that, I really enjoyed it. I did find it slightly odd that you decided to spend the first 90 seconds (a quarter of the act) slowly walking and stacking props. I must admit I found that part rather boring and superfluous. I thought the balance was awesome but again didn't understand why you slowly laid down the props and then had to walk all the way across the stage to pick up the balls. Were there technical reasons why you couldn't just put the props down and have the balls set up in front of you? The rest of it was lovely.
Little Paul - - Parent #
I have a bit of a problem with people starting their act by carrying all their props on stage and then carefully laying them out. In my view if you need props laid out in a certain way, that's what stage crew are for. Let me watch the compère while the crew lay out the equipment, so when you come on stage I can watch you juggle.
There was only one trick in the first 2 minutes of the act. It was a bloody good combination trick, but by that point I was itching for something to happen.
I didn't understand carefully laying down the props at the end of the combination trick either, it felt like they were laid out in a special configuration to set up a trick later in the routine - a trick which unfortunately never materialized.
The juggling section was very nice though, and I really appreciated the face balance on the rolabola as I know full well how much of a headfuck that is to get working :)
There seems to be a modern aversion to things like prop stands and dump boxes, but I think in this case a dump box which doubled as a rolabola base would have tightened things up significantly.
YMMV etc, I'm just a bloke on the internet, I don't get a lot of the "art" claptrap that thrives in circus schools ;)
Thanks for your input! The reason for the slow walking and everything like that is new circus. AFUK is a new circus school and focuses a lot more on the artistic and scenic part the performance then on the technique. I was trying to achieve some sort of theatrical effect but it's bloody hard. :)
I've always been that kind of juggler who has his props all laid out in front of him and then go through them one by one, but since I attended that particular school, I was trying to change it and build an atmosphere more than showing off my tricks.
My idea of that performance was a bit unclear for myself but in the version I play now, I don't even have music and play a lot more on the audience in different way but essentially the same tricks. I'm thinking of developing this version of the act also to make it more interesting to watch but we'll see when I get around to it. :)
I agree that the carefully placement of the objects after the first combo trick looks rather weird and in my version now I just drop them. :P
I liked the juggling especially the combo tricks, but I also didn't like the set up. I couldn't see any reason why you were moving slowly which was incongruous with the speed you moved at during the ball juggling section. I didn't pick up any character or story from it.
I hope AFUK aren't teaching that moody moving slow=artistic new circus.
For a good example of slow movement in a circus act there is an adagio act in Cirque Du Soleil's Quidam (For anyone that doesn't know, adagio is a style of acrobalance where 2 or more performers transition between balances in a slow & controlled manner). The performers are decked out from head to toe in grey body paint, their hair is plastered & they wear grey toga-esque costumes, every step is taken very slowly & accompanied by a massive booming footstep sound effect. The look, the sound & the way they move all combine to create the impression that the characters on stage are colossal statues. Everything about the act is geared towards making the audience believe a fantasy.
Little Paul - - Parent #
I hope AFUK aren't teaching that moody moving slow=artistic new circus.
If they are, they'd be in plenty of company.
Judging by a lot of the graduation shows I've seen over the years Circus Space (or whatever they're called these days) and Circomedia have been teaching angsty-poderous-movement-as-art for decades now. I blame the aerialists :P
I'm not against movement or story telling (or even carefully arranged props on the floor) in circus by any means, but I do like all movements and prop placements to have a purpose. Whether that purpose is to reinforce a character, or get the performer from one prop/trick to another.
I think that's why the breakdown of the combination trick didn't work for me, it had the appearance of purpose but with out that potential being filled.
God I can't half waffle on about bollocks.
Owen Greenaway - - Parent #
I'm not against movement or story telling (or even carefully arranged props on the floor) in circus by any means, but I do like all movements and prop placements to have a purpose. Whether that purpose is to reinforce a character, or get the performer from one prop/trick to another.
I agree with this and hopefully when you've improved the act this is what you have changed. Any chance we could see a video of the new version?
Thanks all for the discussion and the suggestions! Unfortunately I don't have an updated version but I will work on it more and film it again when I have the chance. Next time I'm booked with that act is in late August but I will probably perform it before as well. :)
God I can't half waffle on about bollocks.
...& that is what the Edge is all about!
I recently came across this piece that is a great demonstration of using movement to create effect so here seems as good a place to drop this as any:
https://youtu.be/JItkRLVlf-c
It's a ballet piece but not much over a minute long so give it a go!
Little Paul - - Parent #
I like that, and had I not seen the title - but been asked to speculate what was being represented... I think I'd have guessed right. Which I think means she hit the target. :)
Little Paul - - Parent #
Glad you agreed on the combination trick.
I think just dropping them is probably quite a satisfying approach from a tension-release POV. The combination trick creates a sense of tension, discarding the props in a quick movement releases that tension, drawing quite a nice line under that section.
I said something about purpose somewhere in this thread, and I think your setup with the clubs are a good example of what I meant. The way you laid them out on the rolabola set you up for step/scissor catch, the arrangement had purpose (in a way some of the other props didn't).
Although it feels a bit like a missed opportunity having 5 clubs in the setup and only using one of them in a special manner. It's the sort of detail I'd end up sinking hours of time into working out, but some arrangement which means you pick up two, kick up two, and stamp/scissor catch the 5th would be a really nice touch.
But yeah, my half formed idea is half formed :)
Anyway, yes, I think you can be justifiably happy with that act - especially if you've already worked on it and moved it on. How did the circus school like it? Did they give you any feedback? I'd be interested to hear what they thought.
I agree with the tension that is building up but not released and it's a really good thing you pointed it out.
Hmm. Interesting! I will try to find different ways for this since I don't like the pickup of 4 clubs in the same way either. Maybe kickups would be a good way to to something more interesting with it. I will work on it! Thanks! :)
Good to hear! They liked it a lot but the things they asked me to work on was for instance that pick up of 5 clubs and then just run through it and really think over each part. The ball juggling segment they were not as fan of as I, since it was improvised and different each time. Now I have a set ball part which I hope is more interesting then this one each time and not sometimes. :)