Kate notes that we’re merely tapping into some deeper truths about teaching here and Andy notes (in the wiki) that this sort of technique applies pretty generally to subjects besides math.

They’re both right, in doses. If we’re trying to simulate the world then photographic quality is, of course, preferred, but even more than that, I like what Kevin points out, that drawings – particularly the kind your textbook stocks in its “Applications & Extensions” section – tend to leave out the noisy details – shadows, ferns, etc. – and include only what’s relevant or useful. But our students will have no one but themselves to tell them what’s relevant or useful. (This is why, on the EXIF photo, I made sure to include not only shutter speed but aperture, lens size, and a bunch of other totally irrelevant details.) We need the noise, which photographs supply in far greater quantity than drawings.

Shorter summary: Kate is right. I think it’s important for anyone who would commit to this sort of project to recognize a) how this is just good inquiry-based instruction, but b) modernized and simplified in ways that were impossible even ten years ago.

Ken, shoot man, I’ve got, like, four wikis parked in my garage.

Total non sequitur as long as I’m turning blog comments into posts, by far the most satisfying part of this framework is digging back into some of my early work, even impulsive stuff like Graphing Stories, which I shot and edited on a weekend, and watching how closely it tracks to the framework I’d lay down here years later. For good or bad (and no one so far has suggested that any one of these guidelines are misguided) I have internalized this aesthetic, which gives me a lot of hope that I can shepherd some sort of curriculum to completion.