Didactyl: 2016-02-24 status

Done

Completed required "Preventing Discrimination and Sexual Violence Training."
Determined current plans are consistent with IRB protocol and terms of Provost's Award, which stipulate "funds must be expended substantially in accord with the budget submitted." (So we have some wiggle room.)

Drafted "monolithic" Qualtrics survey to collect WTC fingering data for 9 P&Fs and to spend $1000 (or less?) in the process.
Added undo/redo and revert functionality to abcDE.
Added "tags" button to open modal dialog for metadata entry in abcDE.
Added support for "copy" and "paste" of complete fingering sequences.
Downloaded four public domain editions of WTC Book 1 with different editors (Czerny, Busoni, Czerny and Roitzch, and Mugellini) from IMSLP.
Split preludes from fugues to be more digestible by subjects.
Entered Czerny's recommended fingerings for seven WTC P&Fs (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 15 and 21) into abcDE, identifying several bugs and warts in the process. The interface does make this a relatively painless process, so I can generate a fair amount of data myself.
Fixed several bugs and warts. Several remain.
Decided to implement a MIDI/image capture system independent from future computer vision system. Will prototype in Python and SimpleCV.
Reached out to a friend and former film major for advice on lighting and cameras, with the idea of assembling a shopping list.

Determining predictive value of one fingering sequence choice on another--initial Chi Square foray.
Drafting recruitment email for Survey III.
Calculating mean edit distance as measure of IAA and "influence."
Calculating adoption rate as measure of "influence."
Testing monolithic Qualtrics survey.
Discussing each descriptive chart in detail--its purpose, insight (if any).
Performing Chi Square analysis of exploratory dataset to correlate abbreviated Parncutt fingerings with gender, reach, age, Hanon usage, technical practice, preparation actions, injury, etc.
Entering Czerny annotations for P&F 9 and 17. The plan is to annotate--and in the process validate--the 10 (minus 1, since the content of Czerny's P&F 8 diverges significantly from OpenWTC) most well-known selections as reported by our survey respondents.

The editor is not working for multiple exercises in Qualtrics using Safari desktop. Fingerings from prior exercises appear in subsequent ones, and prior scores appear "under" current ones. Very strange and very bad for our response rate.
We have complete Czerny and Hart fingerings, but only partial data for Parncutt. I think we need functioning Parncutt code before we can move forward with last week's proposed study to apply our evaluation method.
How do we combine mean agreement, mean edit distance, and adoption as a measure of overall "influence" or quality of a model?
Musing about ambiguity (completeness) in editorial fingering annotations. What questions can we ask our subjects to clarify? What exercises can we pose?