This is my second attempt to formally review a video for Computing Reviews. In the first attempt, the quality of production was so totally awful (with no relation to the lecturer) that any attempt to honestly review it was simply hopeless. In this video, the subject is somewhat better, though there still remains much room for improvement of production quality. That, in itself, is an excellent reason to begin this process of public review of professional videos, and I salute Computing Reviews for this very worthwhile effort.

First, I should state that I did not listen to this online, but I downloaded it so I could comfortably listen, view, and review (view repeatedly). The first two minutes of the video are taken up by a person who, I think, attempted to introduce the lecturer. Though I turned up the volume to the maximum, I could not even discern words; it was a very low-volume audio blur. Fortunately, at about two minutes, the actual lecturer came on and that was audible. The first 30 seconds are then devoted to the irrelevancy of him referencing what we previously could not hear--a bit weird, but blessedly short: “only” 3.6 percent of the video a total waste of time. This shows why the effort to review videos is so important.

I should mention that the continuation of the video was comfortably viewed with normal audio strength. For, of course, viewing a video for the purpose of writing a review that may prove useful to others is at least as “stressful” as viewing the video for the purpose of learning the subject, because of the “back-and-forth” needed to hear and react in parallel.

“The big question I’ve been interested in is ”What is software design all about?’” The lecturer tells us that he is looking at this question philosophically. Clearly, this is a very poignant issue, and it is about time for this area of research to be opened up.

An issue of production quality (again): The screen is divided into a right-hand side for the lecturer and a left-hand side for his slides, which is an excellent way for the video viewer to better comprehend the lecture.

One of the fascinating ideas put forth is his equating that “concepts are machines.” This is a very fundamental understanding of software, for the purpose of software design. I would consider this metanotion a significant step in the comprehension of software design. Note: The idea of “machine” refers, of course, to state machines. This is important because every “machine” also has a property called “situation”: the “thing” is “situated” in a specific milieu (20 minutes into the video).

The lecturer frequently accepts questions from the audience (see 22:12 to 27:00). The questions are inaudible and repeated for viewers: another production glitch. This results in the answer being without context and not really helpful, particularly when there is a back-and-forth between the lecturer and the questioner. Again, this results in minutes of video viewer dead time.

“The impossibility of predicting”: This is another basic concept introduced by the lecturer that has, I believe, great value. In this, he maps the ideas of requirements to that of design issues.

I have been reviewing and writing about books for some four decades. There have been good and better and awful. I have written hundreds of reviews. Now, we are embarking upon reviews of videos, and videos have the characterization of being unpublished or published unprofessionally. This is important, and hard.

I have the privilege to say that I recommend this video, but guardedly. If I may be bold enough to address the lecturer, he states at the onset that he is considering a book. I strongly encourage that, as these notions clearly deserve a much broader audience. This particular video is already useful, though production quality still leaves much to be desired, with myriad stretches of dead time. [The “real” lecture ends at 57 minutes; after that (about 12 minutes) are inaudible questions and answers.]