Dissertation Research

[Heather Readdy]

Hi all,

As the title says I am doing research for my dissertation, so I thought I would post some of my questions on here to see the kind of responses I get. So here it goes, my starting point was that a person doesn't need to be from the lighting industry in order to program a show. (if any one has any opinions on that sentence I would love to hear them.)

My questions are:

Do you think in order to get onto a lighting course; one of therequirements should be to have good IT skills?

Should it be taught before any student picks up a light?

 

Do you think companies are using the right type of people to betatest their software?

 

What type of people do you think they should use? Should they usepeople that are unfamiliar with it?

 

When programming a show how do you approach a show when programmingit? How do you think someone with no experience would deal with it?

 

Do you think developers should know something about lighting?

 

So there you go :) I literally want to hear everything anyone has to say about this and if any one can point me in the direction of some good books or people to talk to I would really appreciate it. Big thank you in advance :)

 

Heather :)

 

I

 

 

[paulears]

Hi Heather - we get lots of dissertation questions, and we're often left very confused. Ironically many of the forum members run the kinds of uni course that you are on and tend to pull their hair out a little.

 

A few common questions will be asked - so here are some common ones before we get too far.

 

Looking at the questions above - what are you trying to prove, disprove, advance or promote?

 

You are on a lighting course, so are far more qualified to answer the should it be taught question. You must know from your own cohort who is advantaged/disavantaged - I don't think that we can have an opinion really, as we don't know course content, so we'd be guessing.

 

Title - do you have a title that will give context and possible let us see any 'swing' you have?

 

As for IT? (a spell checker to cure your sticky spacebar would be good)

 

When programming a show how do you approach a show when programmingit? How do you think someone with no experience would deal with it?

If somebody had no experience, why would they be programming a show - everybody would presumably have some experience or they'd not be doing it?

 

Developers? Do you mean lighting software developers? If they don't know about lighting, not really much point is there.

 

Please - I'm not trying to be rude, but these questions are the kind of things they do in colleges with 16 year olds on a BTEC. Is there really any serious, in-depth analysis and research to be done here? As a dissertation it does seem full of holes and insufficiently deep or wide enough to generate any serious material?

 

If a person is not from the lighting industry WHY would they be programming a show, unless you mean you are interested in perhaps an artistic style performer attempting to programme a show, as a purely physical skill, on somebody else's instruction.

 

 

What course is it, what skills and knowledge do you have, and what is your interest (to be honest, it sounds a bit dull to me!)

 

Paul

[Heather Readdy]

Hi Paul,

 

This is just the beginning of my research and to be honest I was expecting to get some mixed opinions about it. the questions above are not my only questions.

2 of my main questions that I am researching are

1. Too what extent in an intermediate level of knowledge of software development useful to a lighting programmer?

2. should software developers know something about lighting in order to develop software for an end user?

 

To find my answers I am writing case studies one being on Carallon and another on a specific developer and speaking to people in the industry,

also to help with my research I am on a work placement and looking at things from a real world prospective not just the prospective of a student. I am also researching the notion of interdisciplinary cooperation.

On my question on whether it should be taught I didn't want just student opinions I need a broad range of opinions it shouldn't just be limited to just one kind of opinion.

In the end I am hoping to draw a conclusion on the idea that a person doesn't need to be from the lighting industry, or have a background in lighting in order to program a show.

Now I know and completely understand that people may not agree with this entirely but this is my aim I wanted to provoke responses to this in order to either prove or disprove my argument.

I hope this clear's things up for you

 

Heather

[niclights]

I have been involved in beta-testing and associated roles alongside lighting console software developers for a number of years now.

 

While I do have a background in computing I do not believe any knowledge of software development is useful or necessary to a lighting programmer, operator or beta-tester of console software. It is not important, either to the programmer or (in the case of beta-testing), the developer. It may be beneficial to have a very broad understanding to appreciate the difficulties and limitations a developer might face, particularly in regards to task prioritisation and scheduling, but it is most important a tester focusses on the needs of the software leaving the decision making to the developer. A general understanding of computers will be helpful to the modern programmer/operator/tester.

 

It is undoubtedly useful to have a wide range of testers of varying ability, experience and application (for example, live music/theatre/TV). By doing this the developer hopefully covers all types of user and requirement. However, it is vital that a tester can provide usable feedback to a developer. This, by definition can result in difficulty when trying to get information from less experienced testers. There is no ideal solution in this case - on the one hand it is invaluable to have fresh thinking, on the other they are unlikely to fully understand the existing capabilities. Sometimes this simply means something is incorrectly reported as a bug, but it may be more complicated raising the question of whether a design change is necessary or whether it is fine as it is where all software requires a certain degree of familiarity depending on its complexity.

 

In contrast it is very important for the developer to understand the end-user's requirements. This is essential in order for the tester/customer to be able to communicate with the developer. Without an understanding of the application the developer would be unable to drive a project forward, improve functionality or fix issues.

 

Regarding programming I will always design, program and operate my own shows. As such I believe it is very important the programmer does understand lighting and this being more relevant than their understanding of computers. In general most lighting console software development is focussed on making the sofware as fluid and intuitive as possible to minimise the techical knowledge required making it more accessible to the designer.

 

I do not believe a show can be programmed particularly successfully by someone from outside the industry. While there is an overlap of technical and artistic the capabilities of consoles favour the artistic side. I conclude it is increasingly unlikely a person from outside the industry would be required to program a show.

[Heather Readdy]

I have been involved in beta-testing and associated roles alongside lighting console software developers for a number of years now.

 

While I do have a background in computing I do not believe any knowledge of software development is useful or necessary to a lighting programmer, operator or beta-tester of console software. It is not important, either to the programmer or (in the case of beta-testing), the developer. It may be beneficial to have a very broad understanding to appreciate the difficulties and limitations a developer might face, particularly in regards to task prioritisation and scheduling, but it is most important a tester focusses on the needs of the software leaving the decision making to the developer. A general understanding of computers will be helpful to the modern programmer/operator/tester.

 

It is undoubtedly useful to have a wide range of testers of varying ability, experience and application (for example, live music/theatre/TV). By doing this the developer hopefully covers all types of user and requirement. However, it is vital that a tester can provide usable feedback to a developer. This, by definition can result in difficulty when trying to get information from less experienced testers. There is no ideal solution in this case - on the one hand it is invaluable to have fresh thinking, on the other they are unlikely to fully understand the existing capabilities. Sometimes this simply means something is incorrectly reported as a bug, but it may be more complicated raising the question of whether a design change is necessary or whether it is fine as it is where all software requires a certain degree of familiarity depending on its complexity.

 

In contrast it is very important for the developer to understand the end-user's requirements. This is essential in order for the tester/customer to be able to communicate with the developer. Without an understanding of the application the developer would be unable to drive a project forward, improve functionality or fix issues.

 

Thanks for your reply. What are the kind's of things you look for, questions that you ask when testing?

[paulears]

To be honest, no it doesn't.

'A knowledge of software development' - meaning, I assume somebody who can write in some form of computer language, as in a computer software programmer? A lighting programmer is a totally different job, isn't it. The programmers I know are skilled users of a computer based system, knowing the ins and outs of the operating system and the way it's integrated into the manual control features. I have no idea if they are 'real' software programmers because I've never seen any of them do that. I need a programmer on an unfamiliar control to make things happen when the LD says "make it ..........".

 

So my opinion is that the ability to work at code level in programming computers is not essential for a lighting programmer - at all.

 

It's going to be hard work using this as a study subject as there doesn't to me seem to be any purpose or point.

 

Can you tell us why you think the skill is important?

 

I'd always though RB put emphasis more on the art/craft elements rather than the nuts and bolts?

[niclights]

Thanks for your reply. What are the kind's of things you look for, questions that you ask when testing?

 

I'm not sure whether I ever ask any questions as a tester, other than perhaps to clarify how a new function should be working or whether something has deliberately been changed.

Mostly I will provide feedback to the developer on new functions, general operation and suggestions for new features. Where there are issues I will try to find repeatable conditions and then detail these to the developer. They can then follow the instructions, observe the problem and fix it. I might also assign a high priority level if I believe it is significant or critical, although it is always ultimately at the developers discretion how this is scheduled. A developer may come back to me to ask further questions, either because they cannot repeat the problem using my instructions or to ask for comments on new functions.

 

(Note that I edited my post since you replied to add my thoughts about programming.)

[Heather Readdy]

Thanks for your reply. What are the kind's of things you look for, questions that you ask when testing?

 

I'm not sure whether I ever ask any questions as a tester, other than perhaps to clarify how a new function should be working or whether something has deliberately been changed.

Mostly I will provide feedback to the developer on new functions, general operation and suggestions for new features. Where there are issues I will try to find repeatable conditions and then detail these to the developer. They can then follow the instructions, observe the problem and fix it. I might also assign a high priority level if I believe it is significant or critical, although it is always ultimately at the developers discretion how this is scheduled. A developer may come back to me to ask further questions, either because they cannot repeat the problem using my instructions or to ask for comments on new functions.

 

(Note that I edited my post since you replied to add my thoughts about programming.)

 

Thank you for this your comments are extremely helpful. As I go further into my research would you mind if ask you some more questions?

 

thanks again

[niclights]

You're welcome. I don't mind. I can't promise I will be able to answer but there's no harm in asking.

[Heather Readdy]

To be honest, no it doesn't.

'A knowledge of software development' - meaning, I assume somebody who can write in some form of computer language, as in a computer software programmer? A lighting programmer is a totally different job, isn't it. The programmers I know are skilled users of a computer based system, knowing the ins and outs of the operating system and the way it's integrated into the manual control features. I have no idea if they are 'real' software programmers because I've never seen any of them do that. I need a programmer on an unfamiliar control to make things happen when the LD says "make it ..........".

 

So my opinion is that the ability to work at code level in programming computers is not essential for a lighting programmer - at all.

 

It's going to be hard work using this as a study subject as there doesn't to me seem to be any purpose or point.

 

Can you tell us why you think the skill is important?

 

I'd always though RB put emphasis more on the art/craft elements rather than the nuts and bolts?

 

 

"I am studying a Creative Lighting Control course which is about both, being creative as well as the 'nuts and bolts'.

 

I am a Lighting Programmer myself but software development is something that I have always had an interest in.

The idea is to find out how knowledge in software programming might influence a lighting programmers work,

or if software programmers with knowledge of lighting approach the industry differently than 'generic' software programmers.

 

However, thanks very much for your comments, I will bear them in mind.

[cfmjohn]

I'll chip in on this one from the perspective of a software developer who has dabbled in a bit of lighting so I'll answer the development questions and leave the lighting ones to others. For background I'm currently doing my masters in Computer Science so I am reasonably proficient although this has been for academic projects and some limited external work.

 

First off I think you need to separate IT from development - they are very different things. Personally I'd say basic IT skills would be useful for a programming a show as consoles are becoming more and more computer like each year.

 

Development is should be a highly structured process following a particular methodology. This wiki gives you a bit of a taste of some of them. Basically they boil down to design, build, test, deploy and you loop round those four until you're finished. Not how most would program a show.

 

With beta testing it's common to put the application into the hands of the users (be it internal staff or limited members of the public) because by that point a huge amount of testing and reworking will have already been done. Beta software should be almost ready to go with only minor bugs, the unit testing & alpha stages should have picked up more major problems.

If they used testers who are unfamiliar with programming, how would developers know whats a bug and what's a user problem (people not operating it properly)?

 

In my opinion, beta testers should be the extremely proficient users who will exercise the most number of features of a new console OS to find the bugs. They're also more likely to contact the manufacturer and be able to actually describe the problem as opposed to the dreaded "it doesn't work" fault reports.

 

Should developers know about lighting? That depends. If they're responsible for the design stages then yes they probably should. Once the design is complete and a solid set of requirements defined then there's no need to have a lighting-savvy developer. They should just be following plans - it's often possible to sub-contract the coding out to a 3rd party too.

 

I hope that's been some help. Feel free to ask away if there's something you'd like to know about software development but it's not as simple as it appears from the surface.

 

John

[Heather Readdy]

1353692228[/url]' post='458035']

I'll chip in on this one from the perspective of a software developer who has dabbled in a bit of lighting so I'll answer the development questions and leave the lighting ones to others. For background I'm currently doing my masters in Computer Science so I am reasonably proficient although this has been for academic projects and some limited external work.

 

First off I think you need to separate IT from development - they are very different things. Personally I'd say basic IT skills would be useful for a programming a show as consoles are becoming more and more computer like each year.

 

Development is should be a highly structured process following a particular methodology. This wiki gives you a bit of a taste of some of them. Basically they boil down to design, build, test, deploy and you loop round those four until you're finished. Not how most would program a show.

 

With beta testing it's common to put the application into the hands of the users (be it internal staff or limited members of the public) because by that point a huge amount of testing and reworking will have already been done. Beta software should be almost ready to go with only minor bugs, the unit testing & alpha stages should have picked up more major problems.

If they used testers who are unfamiliar with programming, how would developers know whats a bug and what's a user problem (people not operating it properly)?

 

In my opinion, beta testers should be the extremely proficient users who will exercise the most number of features of a new console OS to find the bugs. They're also more likely to contact the manufacturer and be able to actually describe the problem as opposed to the dreaded "it doesn't work" fault reports.

 

Should developers know about lighting? That depends. If they're responsible for the design stages then yes they probably should. Once the design is complete and a solid set of requirements defined then there's no need to have a lighting-savvy developer. They should just be following plans - it's often possible to sub-contract the coding out to a 3rd party too.

 

I hope that's been some help. Feel free to ask away if there's something you'd like to know about software development but it's not as simple as it appears from the surface.

 

John

 

Hi john Thanks for your comments they are very valid and very useful. I would definitely like to pick your brains further about software development in the near future and also do you know of any books that maybe would help me?

Thanks again :)

 

 

[Boggy]

Do you think in order to get onto a lighting course; one of therequirements should be to have good IT skills?

Should it be taught before any student picks up a light?

 

I am a professional computer programmer (B.Eng. hons) for industrial machinery who does a few lighting shows each year (24 channels of conventionals, 24 LED cans and 4 moving lights). My involvement includes design, hire, transport, setup, focus, programming, rehearsal, operation and bump out.

 

The most important IT skills IMO for lighting are the ability to use a word processor to make notes and spreadsheets to make tables with columns that add up (budget, channel allocation, gel allocation, power consumption, weight, timesheets etc). These skills then require discipline to make effective use of the documents. While IT skills may help you understand the programming of a lighting desk I think that the effect on the end result (lighting on stage) is minimal. I think that you would get better results by spending course time on arts related subjects.

 

I recently worked on a particular show so that I would learn more about programming of moving lights. I would have spent many hours (probably 60) reading mannuals, making notes, producing small bits of programming in preparation for this show. When it came to do the show I found that I knew very little about how to use these effects to enhance the show. It is very easy to create looks that detract from the performance. With perserverance I managed to create a few good effects and was happy with the results (the director was also happy which is good). To improve next years show I will study the video of this years show to identify other places where effects could have been used (I.e I will work on the art not the programming).

[rossmck]

I'll put answers below. Firstly to give you some of my background, which seems relevant, although I'm here as a lighting person and undertake quite a bit of lighting work (and indeed beta test for a couple of console manufacturers) I have a background in software development and worked as a developer and IT person for many years after studying Computing at University. Ironically whilst that was well paid, I'd far rather do lighting... ;)

 

Do you think in order to get onto a lighting course; one of therequirements should be to have good IT skills?

 

To be honest to get into most courses these days, good IT skills are almost a prerequisite, as others have said skills like spreadsheets are more appropriate - and many lighting designers will use packages such as Wysiwyg, Vectorworks, Lightwright etc - so some computer skills are useful for this, not so much for the operation of lighting desks.

 

Should it be taught before any student picks up a light?

 

No, actually (note I'm not an educator!) I think picking up a light should be one of the first things - let people handle them, and work out how they work for themselves - understand concepts such as focus, shutters, gobos, barndoors etc before teaching the theory behind using them - I've found in my limited 'teaching' roles (e.g. trying to train others working with amdram groups etc who are interested in it) that familiarity with the tools in person is far more useful than trying to explain them

 

Do you think companies are using the right type of people to betatest their software?

 

Well I'm one of them , and I know others on here are , so I'd say probably :)

 

What type of people do you think they should use? Should they usepeople that are unfamiliar with it?

 

Anyone beta-testing lighting software should be familiar with lighting ... Just the same as anyone beta testing software for video editing should be someone with some knowledge of video production.

 

Do you think developers should know something about lighting?

 

If they're devleoping lighting software - yes - If you want an example of a recent (high profile) situation why this is necessary look at the deployment of new IT systems within organisations like the NHS - designed and tested by people that have no experience in the role of the people who will actually be using it (e.g. GPs, Support Staff etc) and as a result you often end up with products that aren't fit for purpose.

 

Hope the above is of use to you, don't hesitate to drop me an eMail if you have any other questions, and congrats on some well thought out questions (and listening to the answers) compared to many of the multiple choice 'questionnaires' we see on here :)

[Just Some Bloke]

I've spent the last 24 hours desperately trying not to just post:

 

 

Should [iT] be taught before any student picks up a light?

 

No no no no no no no!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

But as a moderator I would have to censor myself and that wouldn't be good!

 

So I feel I should expand.

 

Lighting design is an art. Programming is a science. If a student is expected to be doing nothing but programming then yes, let's teach them IT skills first, but what use would that be - a programmer who doesn't know about design? The best programmers get to know what designers are thinking and start to get ahead of them. So the designer gets as far as "could you give me..." and the programmer has already done it! Someone who just presses buttons isn't anything like as much use as someone who understands what the designer is thinking. One of the top West End programmers is Rob Halliday who is much in demand for his programming skills (credits include Oliver!, Martin Guerre, Les Mis, Blood Brothers, Mary Poppins, Evita etc.) but look at the list of shows he has designed for too: My linkhttp://robhalliday.com/Design/Design/DesignResume.html.

As Rob says on his own website

"Programming is taking what the lighting designer - the artist - wants to have happen, and dealing with the computers and the mechanics of the lights to make it happen, all with an artistic eye so you know what they mean by 'a leafy blue blob over there'.

(My bold).

Everyone working in lighting should be starting with what the lights can do not what the IT can do.

 

 

What type of people do you think they should use? Should they use people that are unfamiliar with it?

Why would that help?

 

Do you think developers should know something about lighting?

How could you possible design anything at all without knowing about your subject?

 

 

I think you may have to work very hard to convince us that IT comes first in a lighting world. IT has done wonders for lighting and allows visualisations, makes it easier to draw rig plans and generate lists, allows multiple moving lights to all do different things at the same time and many other wonderful things, but give me a room full of generic lanterns and a manual lighting board and I can still light a show, give me a computer and no lanterns and I can't.