{"id":1794,"date":"2020-09-10T05:11:41","date_gmt":"2020-09-10T04:11:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/digital.eca.ed.ac.uk\/sdhandbook\/?page_id=1794"},"modified":"2020-09-10T05:11:41","modified_gmt":"2020-09-10T04:11:41","slug":"durations-and-wordcounts","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/digital.eca.ed.ac.uk\/sdhandbook\/durations-and-wordcounts\/","title":{"rendered":"Durations and wordcounts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Submissions\n on practice-led courses will usually require a short written document \nexplaining your approach, summarising your main achievements, crediting \ninfluences and explaining your aesthetic choices. Each course will set \nlimits for word counts which will include footnotes, but will not count \nthe bibliography. Durations for time-based work will also be set and \nusually have a window of acceptable length. In this example: between 4-6 minutes<\/code>, you are expected to meet the minimum and not exceed the maximum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Durations for submissions\n specified in course project briefs are purposefully set to help you \nrefine your practice in a specific context, to ensure parity across the \ncohort and to help guarantee that each submission gets the same amount \nof time devoted to assessment and feedback. These limitations are \ndesigned to challenge you to work within specific parameters much like \nthe challenges you will meet in your career.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Work\n that goes over the set durations may not be listened to in its \nentirety. Work that is significantly shorter than specified durations \nmay not get a high mark, especially where it is clear that its brevity \nis evidence of having done less work than was expected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\n some cases \u2013 through collaborative pressures or because of a bold \naesthetic choice \u2013 you might push durations in one direction or another \nbeyond the suggested limits. Often there will be allowance for such in \nthe brief but if you choose to take significant risks with specified \ndurations, you should check with your course organiser the extent to \nwhich this can be stretched.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\n understand that some practices are denser than others. Course \norganisers try to design briefs that negotiate this in sensible ways. \nFor example, it is understood that a 5-minute solo oboe piece is a \nradically different proposition than a work of the same duration for \nchamber orchestra. Similarly some work demands that you develop rafts of\n material, code or technique and the finished creative work will \nrepresent just the tip of your achievements. In such cases the brief \nwill ask you to submit the other materials to evidence this effort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\n is important to bear in mind that the amount of time dedicated to \nmarking work is finite. Work that takes much more time to engage with \nwill almost certainly not get as thorough engagement on all of its \nelements as work that fits the size of the submission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Often,\n especially in projects involving software you develop yourself, we ask \nyou to take a screen grab of the work as you see it behaving and \nsounding on your machine. This is a very important part of the \nsubmission since software frequently does not work as expected on a \ndifferent operating system. We may also ask for a technical explanation \nvideo which can work in lieu of a manual. These kinds of screen captures\n work best when planned, prepared and limited in duration. If these are \nasked for, there will almost certainly be a specific time limit on how \nlong they should last.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most courses have two submissions,\n often the second is more substantial than the first. The following is a\n guideline for the durations of submission elements you might expect to \nencounter, but please refer to specific project briefs for exact \ndetails:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

30% first submission<\/p>\n\n\n\n