My team said that the lab had a lot more attendance than the workshop - probably since it was shorter (less of a commitment from the attendees in case they were only marginally interested) and also the labs were integrated into the conference space/schedule. I think that's a good thing. <div>
<br></div><div>Though, I've never had to orchestrate the logistics of such a thing. So, given the idea of dropping the computer lab, I would propose:</div><div><br></div><div>Go with the a computer-less lab. In such a setting people could come and get a very thorough introduction to a piece of software - much more than in a 15 minute talk. They could meet the developer team and learn about the project and see a demo and so forth. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Perhaps a name other than "lab" is needed. Something like "Project Spotlight" where a single project is spotlighted and talked about and instructed on and demo'd etc for the 90 minutes. (or even 60 minutes? though much less wouldn't be much of a spotlight)</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Dan<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Cameron Shorter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cameron.shorter@gmail.com">cameron.shorter@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I'm hearing advice on cutting labs, which I'm fine with, but I'm concerned that no one is addressing what I consider to be our immediate need with regards to defining the revised program, and hence what rooms we require.<br>
<br>
If we take away labs, should we replace them with computer-less labs? Probably renamed as tutorials.<br>
<br>
The most important question for me - which I want to resolve by our budget meeting on Tuesday, is are we having 1 day or labs or 2? (I'm adverse to changing to 2 days, I think it is too much of a change to the expected program).<div class="Ih2E3d">
<br>
<br>
Frank Warmerdam wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Paul Ramsey wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
They double (or more) the number of different software combinations<br>
that need to be supported, but since they are shorter, they have a<br>
smaller increment of teaching-time-to-logistical-prep-time-required.<br>
They also tend to be less in-depth and because they are shorter they<br>
make less effective use of the lab equipment (proportionally more<br>
watching-the-teacher time and less using-the-computer time).<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Paul,<br>
<br>
Your points are pretty strong. I would note that some potential<br>
instructors, such as myself, are rather hesitant to take on the<br>
responsibility of a full three hour workshop, and the 90 minute lab<br>
makes a more approach intermediate commitment.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
-- <br></div>
Cameron Shorter<br>
Geospatial Systems Architect<br>
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050<br>
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254<br>
<br>
Think Globally, Fix Locally<br>
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source<br>
<a href="http://www.lisasoft.com" target="_blank">http://www.lisasoft.com</a><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Foss4g2009 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Foss4g2009@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Foss4g2009@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2009" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2009</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Daniel P. Ames PhD, PE<br>Department of Geosciences<br>Idaho State University - Idaho Falls<br><a href="mailto:amesdani@isu.edu">amesdani@isu.edu</a><br><a href="http://www.MapWindow.org">www.MapWindow.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.Hydromap.com">www.Hydromap.com</a><br>
</div>