WEBVTT 00:00:07.500 --> 00:00:08.099 Hello, 00:00:08.099 --> 00:00:13.400 Let’s start looking at animations in detail. They belong to three 00:00:13.400 --> 00:00:18.779 categories. First category is made of entrance/exit effects who mostly are 00:00:18.779 --> 00:00:23.300 symmetrical one of each other. I’d like to underline that in entrance/exit effects 00:00:23.300 --> 00:00:28.890 you find two subcategories: those that make the object move, and those 00:00:28.890 --> 00:00:32.750 that don’t, which are usually equivalent 00:00:32.750 --> 00:00:37.300 to a transition. I say “usually” because, we have seen it in the eighth video, 00:00:37.300 --> 00:00:41.100 vidéo, “dissolve” for instance isn’t visually exactly the same with animation 00:00:41.100 --> 00:00:47.300 and transition. In the Commedia dell’ Arte example, I have used “Fly-In” 00:00:47.300 --> 00:00:52.579 to introduce each one of the characters. It’s an entrance effect with a 00:00:52.579 --> 00:00:55.730 movement, which can’t therefore be replaced by a transition. 00:00:55.730 --> 00:01:02.410 Emphasis effects change the appearance of the object, either temporarily, 00:01:02.410 --> 00:01:06.690 or until you advance to the next slide. Here as well, transitions can simulate 00:01:06.690 --> 00:01:10.940 some effects, such as a font color change or 00:01:10.940 --> 00:01:15.849 desaturation, and cannot simulate other effects, such as Grow/Shrink which I have also used with Arlecchino. 00:01:15.849 --> 00:01:21.660 Motion, I’d like to say “by definition”, cannot be replaced by 00:01:21.660 --> 00:01:25.750 a transition, even if some transitions that are not idempotent give a motion 00:01:25.750 --> 00:01:29.950 feeling, but to all elements in the slide. I have used motion too 00:01:29.950 --> 00:01:34.720 for Arlecchino: rather than shrinking him on the spot, jI have combined shrinking 00:01:34.720 --> 00:01:39.569 with motion so as to place him next to his buddies. Finally, I had a faded 00:01:39.569 --> 00:01:43.429 transition that allowed me to replace the image with a slightly desaturated version 00:01:43.429 --> 00:01:50.220 of the same. The desaturation emphasis effect wasn’t resulting in what I wanted. In passing, 00:01:50.220 --> 00:01:54.479 a rule learned from Bruce Block’s excellent book “The Visual Story”, desaturating colors is 00:01:54.479 --> 00:01:58.840 an additional way, other than object size, to reinforce a feeling 00:01:58.840 --> 00:02:01.819 of depth and remoteness when everything you see here 00:02:01.819 --> 00:02:02.429 is a plane surface. 00:02:02.429 --> 00:02:07.319 Let’s take a closer look at the various effects, and I’ll focus in this video 00:02:07.319 --> 00:02:11.670 on entrance effects (I’ll hardly mention exit effects, talking about one is 00:02:11.670 --> 00:02:15.110 talking about the other). As with transitions they are numerous, and as with 00:02:15.110 --> 00:02:19.560 transitions I use only a few. I mostly use the ones that are underlined with 00:02:19.560 --> 00:02:25.420 yellow, especially the ones underlined with bright yellow. “Appear” probably 00:02:25.420 --> 00:02:29.960 needs no comments; we can use two successive slides with no transition instead, 00:02:29.960 --> 00:02:34.310 but animation is sometimes more convenient. I ignore for a time checkerboard, 00:02:34.310 --> 00:02:39.630 somewhat ancillary and that I’ll talk about later, to switch to the next bright yellow spot, 00:02:39.630 --> 00:02:44.590 “Fly-In”. The object moves to its position following 00:02:44.590 --> 00:02:49.590 a straight line from outside the slide, either horizontally, vertically, 00:02:49.590 --> 00:02:54.050 or from any corner. I believe that there is a grammar of movement, and “Fly-in” 00:02:54.050 --> 00:02:59.680 entrance is for me one of two cases: either something new and remarkable, 00:02:59.680 --> 00:03:03.290 or the irruption of the external world into the presentation, with a cursor for instance. 00:03:03.290 --> 00:03:07.010 There is however something to say that isn’t particular to the “Fly-in” entrance 00:03:07.010 --> 00:03:10.650 but that affects it in a particular way. I apologize for bringing in childhood 00:03:10.650 --> 00:03:15.060 memories to introduce that point. When I was a young boy, we were solving at school what 00:03:15.060 --> 00:03:20.220 were called problems. In these problems there were many references to a small 00:03:20.220 --> 00:03:24.240 city that was soon to become familiar and that was called A. 00:03:24.240 --> 00:03:28.900 From A a road was leading to the hardly less famous village named B, distant from 00:03:28.900 --> 00:03:34.680 a few miles. B looked like exerting a mysterious attraction over the A denizens, who were leaving 00:03:34.680 --> 00:03:40.580 early in the morning to pedal rather tranquilly towards it. The inhabitants of B woke up with 00:03:40.580 --> 00:03:43.700 more difficulty and were leaving later towards A but were younger and more 00:03:43.700 --> 00:03:47.920 energetic, or the slope was more favorable, I don’t know, and obviously the question was 00:03:47.920 --> 00:03:52.350 to find out when both cyclists were to cross. Sometimes, there were variations 00:03:52.350 --> 00:03:56.950 and you had to find out the speed, it was never-ending fun. Anyway, what 00:03:56.950 --> 00:04:00.209 this stamped in me was that speed was the distance travelled by 00:04:00.209 --> 00:04:05.180 unit of time. Far later I studied physics and naively I kept believing that 00:04:05.180 --> 00:04:10.750 what I had acquired in primary school was a universal truth. My certainties, 00:04:10.750 --> 00:04:14.240 which had held firmly so far, were blown away when I discovered Powerpoint for which 00:04:14.240 --> 00:04:18.069 speed is a time (as an aside, same story in LibreOffice). If you move by one millimeter, 00:04:18.069 --> 00:04:22.900 as long as you do it in half a second for Powerpoint 00:04:22.900 --> 00:04:27.790 it’s very fast, even if over this distance a snail would leave you behind. At times 00:04:27.790 --> 00:04:32.830 I say to myself that there are places where education sucks. On positive note, Powerpoint 00:04:32.830 --> 00:04:37.960 concepts are sometimes closer to mine. Alright, what is the problem with the Fly-In 00:04:37.960 --> 00:04:41.460 entrance then? Easy to show. Let’s say that you want to introduce Il Capitano, Pulcinella 00:04:41.460 --> 00:04:46.270 and Arlecchino in succession. If you activate “Fly-In” entrance for each of them using default 00:04:46.270 --> 00:04:52.930 options, here is what you get. As you progress, you notice a slight slowing down, 00:04:52.930 --> 00:04:57.130 because time remains the same, and distance to travel increasingly shorter. Obviously in 00:04:57.130 --> 00:05:02.430 a presentation you prefer either speeding up or keeping a constant speed. Here, you get the 00:05:02.430 --> 00:05:05.720 feeling of a circus number that would start with the finale before presenting average feats 00:05:05.720 --> 00:05:10.250 and ending up by what anybody could do. It’s a poor way to keep the audience 00:05:10.250 --> 00:05:15.290 enthusiastic. What to do? Either come back to classical notions of speed, and give more 00:05:15.290 --> 00:05:22.020 time to moves that correspond to a longer displacement. Here, it looks more 00:05:22.020 --> 00:05:26.050 normal; or, and if you watch my videos with attention you’ll see me using it 00:05:26.050 --> 00:05:29.560 most often, use fly-in entrances from either right or left 00:05:29.560 --> 00:05:33.280 when you use them several times on the same slide, so that travelled distances 00:05:33.280 --> 00:05:37.169 remain very close. Notice that if you want to put some 00:05:37.169 --> 00:05:40.930 emphasis over the last object that flies in, you can make it enter from a different direction. 00:05:40.930 --> 00:05:46.020 Even if it moves slower than the other ones, contrast will give a 00:05:46.020 --> 00:05:50.060 kick. Fly-in entrance is something I use only once for an object, unless a 00:05:50.060 --> 00:05:54.150 triumphant exit from the screen justifies a reentrance. For the next reappearances, 00:05:54.150 --> 00:05:59.460 it will be something not as loud. Let’s now take a look at “Peek-in”, 00:05:59.460 --> 00:06:03.940 which proximity in the menu and similarity 00:06:03.940 --> 00:06:07.320 of name, let me long believe that it was a close relative of 00:06:07.320 --> 00:06:11.760 the previous one. In fact this entrance is far closer to the “Wipe” entrance. 00:06:11.760 --> 00:06:17.250 Let’s take two rectangles, and let’s apply to each of them a different entrance. 00:06:17.250 --> 00:06:23.520 Have you seen anything, apart from a slight blur on the left with the top rectangle and 00:06:23.520 --> 00:06:28.970 on the right with the bottom one? In fact, the top rectangle slides towards the right and 00:06:28.970 --> 00:06:34.110 the bottom one is revealed. There is a motion in one case, hence the “In”, not in the other one, 00:06:34.110 --> 00:06:41.229 which a transition can replace. It’s far more obvious with arrows. And with arrows, 00:06:41.229 --> 00:06:46.680 precisely, the two animations carry a slightly different idea. Let’s animate an arrow 00:06:46.680 --> 00:06:52.680 from A then make B appear. With a “peek-in” entrance, I personally feel 00:06:52.680 --> 00:06:58.900 a very strong link of causality. It’s “A entails B”. From A, you 00:06:58.900 --> 00:07:05.470 cannot escape B. However, a “wipe” entrance conveys a link that is far more 00:07:05.470 --> 00:07:10.240 tenuous, more an idea of sequence and time continuity, “A then B”. 00:07:10.240 --> 00:07:15.430 Even if both entrances can be used, depending on the idea that you want to get across, 00:07:15.430 --> 00:07:21.050 it will be one or the other. Sometimes, for instance to make the 00:07:21.050 --> 00:07:25.120 image of a menu appear, both can work - all the more as one as well as the other 00:07:25.120 --> 00:07:28.880 is a kind of poetic vision of the interface, as reality is 00:07:28.880 --> 00:07:32.580 different. However, there are cases when there 00:07:32.580 --> 00:07:37.280 is no option. If I add a mock hand-written annotation, both the 00:07:37.280 --> 00:07:42.470 arrow and text want “wipe”, because that’s how writing works. 00:07:42.470 --> 00:07:49.669 To make a floor-lamp get out of the bag, it’s necessary a “peek-in” entrance, here 00:07:49.669 --> 00:07:53.389 followed by a motion. As I use in my presentations annotations far more 00:07:53.389 --> 00:08:00.139 often than Mary Poppins’s bag, you’ll understand that I use “wipe” more 00:08:00.139 --> 00:08:02.490 often than “peek-in”. “Fade”, it’s like grey or black 00:08:02.490 --> 00:08:08.360 in your wardrobe; you can mix it with anything, without fearing any faux pas. We have 00:08:08.360 --> 00:08:12.460 seen it already, between a “fade” entrance and a “fade” transition there is no difference 00:08:12.460 --> 00:08:18.020 except, and that’s important, when you start animating by letter. Animating by letter, 00:08:18.020 --> 00:08:22.910 why? I told it, a “wipe” entrance is perfect for showing a short 00:08:22.910 --> 00:08:30.020 annotation. As soon as the text spreads over two lines, it falls apart. You can change options 00:08:30.020 --> 00:08:33.820 and try to make t appear one letter at a time, but it doesn’t work, you have a feeling that 00:08:33.820 --> 00:08:38.579 several letters are written at once. A faded entrance, letter by letter, 00:08:38.579 --> 00:08:44.619 restitutes a feeling of manual handwriting. However, with a non-script font, 00:08:44.619 --> 00:08:48.929 for instance to simulate a data field entry, I feel that a checkerboard entrance by letter 00:08:48.929 --> 00:08:53.649 gives a better result. It’s the only case when I use the checkerboard entrance. 00:08:53.649 --> 00:09:01.300 Last useful entrances, zoom entrances. As much as a motion, zooming is an effect 00:09:01.300 --> 00:09:06.679 that a transition cannot apply to an object. You can use zooming for 00:09:06.679 --> 00:09:10.269 for a magnifying effect as I deed (combining it with a motion) 00:09:10.269 --> 00:09:14.819 when I introduced the Gimp toolbox; usually in such a case I use a 00:09:14.819 --> 00:09:20.999 faded zoom. But if zooming in (the default option) is interesting, 00:09:20.999 --> 00:09:24.709 zooming out, an option not available with the faded zoom in the version 00:09:24.709 --> 00:09:30.619 of Powerpoint I’m using, brings an additional dimension: access from the outside, 00:09:30.619 --> 00:09:34.959 but in a kind of transcendental way, not at all like the object that jumps into the visual 00:09:34.959 --> 00:09:41.749 scope with the “fly-in” entrance. It’s a bit like annotations, the narrator getting 00:09:41.749 --> 00:09:46.420 into the slide. It works very well with rubber stamping too, which carries 00:09:46.420 --> 00:09:53.439 the same idea. Everything else, unless you are using a word that exactly matches the 00:09:53.439 --> 00:09:57.540 name of an entrance effect, you can forget it. I use fancy exits more often than 00:09:57.540 --> 00:10:02.129 fancy entrances. If I take for instance Taylor’s famous rule, 00:10:02.129 --> 00:10:06.389 that gives the value of a continuous function close to a point as an expression 00:10:06.389 --> 00:10:10.129 that is a function of powers of h and successive derivative functions in that point 00:10:10.129 --> 00:10:16.139 (I hope it’s not Greek), I can say that if h is small, let’s say 0.1, 00:10:16.139 --> 00:10:22.999 the square will be 0.01, the cube 0.001 and so forth, so I can get a rather decent 00:10:22.999 --> 00:10:27.239 approximate value by dropping expressions where h is raised to a higher power 00:10:27.239 --> 00:10:32.989 and replace the function by its tangent at that point. Saying “drop” obviously begs for 00:10:32.989 --> 00:10:37.389 using the exit effect with the same name. I find using “boomerang” in what 00:10:37.389 --> 00:10:38.139 I say far more difficult.