Disappearing Language:

Solution B made the most sense despite it’s less professional design as it puts the preservation of the language in the hands of it’s speakers and their family. While a dictionary is stagnant and lifeless, the accounts of living Passamaquoddy are active and bring life to the dying language. Passamaquoddy is a language, so it must be spoken to be properly alive, so a compendium of native speakers actually speaking the language is far more effective in preservation then a stale and “professional” endeavor like solution A.

Neglected Ruins:

Solution B is the better one for similar reasons to the previous problem. Solution A is a solution in a vaccum. Sure we’ll get high quality. footage of a few places done by a few professionals but then it’s over and done with. The film made will sit on a shelf collecting dust while the problem persists outside of the few locations a high end camera crew could document. Solution B turns solving the problem into a self sustaining loop. It crowdsources people who truly care about these places into making their own records and accounts of them and sharing them on the web for all other urban explores to see. People from around the world can then contribute to the ever growing list of locations that are now recorded, rather than the select few the crew in Solution A were able to find.

Misunderstanding Computer Animation:

Solution A. Sensing a theme here, Solution A works better than Solution B (Which personally I feel could also work but this is about which is better not which works) for one reason. Interaction. Many people are kinesthetic learners, meaning they learn best through physical interaction and “doing” rather than visual or auditory instruction. Allowing the user to peal away the layers of animation themselves helps these learners better understand the process. Not only that but this solution is far more “elegant” and self explanatory than the other. Solution B requires a step by step break down in detail to work while there are no words needed in Solution A. It is simple, quick, and easy to understand.

Broken Fountain:

Once again we are faced with simplicity vs. over complexity. Solution B while cool, just feels like the creator “flexing” his innovative muscles for no reason other than that they want to. The set up seems overly technological and advanced for what is essential just footage of other beautiful places that are far away. It does nothing to fix the actual problem of there being an eyesore in the middle of the union. Solution A on the other hand offers a chance to turn the derelict fountain into something both pretty AND useful as it grows fruits and vegetables that the mess halls can the use.

Visual Art is too Static:

Murals are traditionally meant to be incredibly detailed static images a viewer needs to take an extended period of time to soak in and see all the little details. However as technology and mainstream artistic tastes change, the static nature of a mural isn’t as appreciated, so a newer Motion Mural might be needed. A Motion Mural would at it’s core be like a normal one, like say for example a large hill with a woman sitting down on it. But a Motion Mural would have several seconds of animation to loop, or perhaps several different loops to decide between when one is done to give the mural an extra feeling of realism. The Mural will move but not shift focus, like say the animation is of the wind blowing and rustling the grass, trees, or the girl’s hair while the sun slowly goes down as the scene begins to gradually darken.
To bring this one step further, the mural could also be interactive. There could be special code in place where if the viewer taps the screen the wind picks up in that part of the mural, making the animations of the tree, hair, and grass pick up in speed and intensity, maybe if the viewer holds down for too long the girl gets annoyed and walks off the mural, only returning if the viewer stops pressing the screen.