The direction that I'm getting from Peter is that, given the choice, we'd rather see fewer (e.g. 1 or 2) but higher quality visualizations (e.g. it complements substantially the learning experience from reading the book alone or attending the class alone) than lots (e.g. 10+) of low quality visualizations (e.g. there is better material out there).
I think this is a reasonable trade-off because it (a) sets the precedent for the quality bar we and (b) enables people to use it right away, at the cost of coverage of the book.
I dunno if this is a hard criteria that can be applied blindly (e.g. perhaps there is only so much that one can do to explain a specific set of algorithms), but more of a general intuition (e.g. to the best of our knowledge, that's the current line of thinking).
@redblobgames, fyi
The direction that I'm getting from Peter is that, given the choice, we'd rather see fewer (e.g. 1 or 2) but higher quality visualizations (e.g. it complements substantially the learning experience from reading the book alone or attending the class alone) than lots (e.g. 10+) of low quality visualizations (e.g. there is better material out there).
I think this is a reasonable trade-off because it (a) sets the precedent for the quality bar we and (b) enables people to use it right away, at the cost of coverage of the book.
I dunno if this is a hard criteria that can be applied blindly (e.g. perhaps there is only so much that one can do to explain a specific set of algorithms), but more of a general intuition (e.g. to the best of our knowledge, that's the current line of thinking).
@redblobgames, fyi