Present:
Matthew Barr (MB)
Rob Hallam (RH)
RH gave a quick (ish) pitch of several of the ideas listed:
interesting, but data access issues
lack of familiarity of Emacs Lisp for that portion
the `fallback' option, though still interesting to RH
slightly niche, and nebulous in the data gathering/scraping aspect
interesting but potentially tricky; more research-oriented (A)
less well-defined in RH's head than it was, can the mechanics be interesting (MB mentioned the potential pitfall of `chocolate-covered broccoli', see 1)
best defined and circumscribed, plenty of potential to do with; more development-oriented (B)
fairly standard, `speak to an API and do something interesting with the output' type project
Several may well be propitious.
Outcome: RH to investigate (A) and (B) further for prior art, feasibility etc and report back to MB with in 1-2 days.
RH mentioned a recent bereavement which happened during exams, with the knock-on effects of needing to sit exams during summer diet in August, and having to tend to affairs (clear house, etc) over the coming weeks and months. MB highlighted Good Cause options. RH mentioned he had been in contact with Isabella Widger, who had provided useful support advice previously and who he felt comfortable approaching again if needed.
Outcome: RH to balance requirements, will keep MB apprised if necessary and contact support if needed
MB's communication preference is email for anything needing specifically `actioned'.
This seems to have originated from Prof Amy Bruckman's 1999 paper, `Can Educational Be Fun?' – ``Most attempts at making software both educational and fun end up being neither. Fun is often treated like a sugar coating to be added to an educational core. Which makes about as much sense as chocolate-dipped broccoli.'' Can Educational Be Fun? (PDF)