Graphics and communication

Computer-aided Visualization of Psycho-social Structures (Part #10)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

In order to understand the value of interactive computer graphics, a few basic principles of communication should be considered. Languages are used to convey thoughts. Languages may be gestural, verbal, written, notational, or graphic. The effectiveness of a language depends upon its ability to retain and transfer meaning and this in turn depends upon the complexity of the language. One can conceive of a spectrum of "language and medium" from primitive gestures through to sophisticated computer environments. At each point in the spectrumthere are disadvantages and advantages for communication. An attempt has been made to list these out in Figures 3 and 4 . [24] These should be considered as very tentative schemas only.

These Figures suggest that most of the advantages of the early portion of the spectrum are combined together in the later portions where interactive graphics is used in various ways. The question is why do graphics help to convey more information than words. One reason is that as concepts become more complex, they do not lend themselves to easy encapsulation in words and phrases. Often an explanation in simple words, whilst theoretically possible, can be achieved only at the price of such prolixity as to defeat the ends of the explanation. Many objects, processes, or abstractions can be portrayed for discussion using a few simple graphical symbols much more easily than thecan be described verbally (of the classic example of the spiral staircase). The other pressure is of course that many subtle invariant and relationships currently displayed in statistical tables, are ignored unless they can be represented in meaningful graphical form.

Figure 3a: Comparison of different methods of communicating concepts
Method	Advantages	Disadvantages
Gesture	direct and to the point;	no abstraction possible dramatic impact
Speech	personalized, subtle, poetic, imageful, analogy-full, adjusted to audience	no permanent record, meanings and models shift from phrase to phrase
Writing	permanent record; words weighed and compared in context; document forms an intelligible whole	meaning of words undefined or differ between documents; definitions become concretized and language dependent; complexity of abstractions limited by syntax of language; problem of jargon
Image	provides context in physical terms; involving, highly complex, high information content, high interrelationship	superficial and unstructured
Maths	handles very complex abstractions and relations and a multiplicity of dimensions	loss of intuitive appreciation of the concepts involved; impenetrable without lengthy initiation; system of notation becomes more complex than the concepts described; impersonal
Diagram (exhibit charts)	structured to make a specific point	over-simplification; exageration of some features at expense of others; processes only displayed statically
Artistic mobiles	complex, new and unredictable relationhips	experience primarily incommunicable
Diagram (flow charts/ graphs)	portray all detectable interrelationships in precise manner; panoramic view of system	visually complex to the point of impenetrability; processes still conveyed statically; difficult to modify

Figure 3b: Comparison of different methods of communicating concepts
Method	Advantages	Disadvantage
Interactiveqraphics (alphascope)	precise messages; responsive; contents cum be) oriented to suit user	no structured overview; bounded by language modeof program; processes conveyed as a sequence of isolated messages (or asa qame experience)
Psychedelicenviron-ment	very subtle and complex imagery and relationships; process oriented; integration of visual and audio; psychologically involving	no scientific content; no significant invariants; experience primarily incommunicable
Interactivegraphics (structured image)	greater user selectivity and control on content and form of presentation; complex abstractions held on display; processes displayed as flows; dynamic; enhanced creativity; 2-4 dimensions.	highly structured without the subtle relationships characteristic of arts; user still centred "outside" the structure "looking in"
Computer graphics art	generation of new and unpredictable dynamic imagery	no scientific or "real world" predictive value
Interactive graphics (multiterminal ) Interactive graphics (coloured and image)	teams working simultaneously on same ideas; access to each others "semantic space"; interactive thinking higher information content; visually more intriguing; closer to artistic media; more powerful presentation of processes	fundamental distinction remains between artistic use of the display or surface volume and scientific interest in structure and data base; still only reflects a portion of the subtleties, of all invariants and processes known to psychologists, diplomats, etc.
Interactive graphics (3D helmet)	user psychologically centred within the structure
Interactive ideograph(hypothetical)	continuous gradation and interaction between scientifically structured and aesthetically structured display; enhanced creativity; reflectssubtleties of psycho-logists, diplomata, etc.ableto convert to andfrom a"field theory"presentation of structures	still only a scaffolding for disciplined thought

Some current interactive graphics uses include, for example, calculation and analysis of electronic circuits, design of aerodynamic shapes and other mechanical pieces, design of optical systems and plasma chambers, simulation of prototype aircraft and rocket flight, visualization of complex molecules in 3 dimensions, air traffic control, chemical plant control, factory design and space allocation, project control, primary, secondary and university education and educational simulations.

In every case above there is some notion of geometry and space, but the geometry is always the three-dimensional conventional space. There is no reason why "non-physical spaces" should not be displayed instead and this is the domain of topology. The argument has been developed by Dean Brown and Joan Lewis. [25]

It is useful to introduce C. S. Peirce's term "iconic", namely "a diagram ought to be as iconic as possible, that is, it should represent (logical) relations be visible relations analogous to them".[26] Iconics is therefore connected with the degree to which features of the graphics display contribute towards, or facilitate understanding. Patrick Meredith makes similar points in discussing the uses of "semantic matrices". [27] He contends that grammarians have attended exclusively to the linear arrangement of words in sentences but that this conventional grammar must now be regarded as a particular case of a very much more extensive "geometrical syntax", just as Aristotelian logic turned out to be a special case of a much wider system of symbolic logic -- and that in the spatial arrangements of entities, their geometric relations should be correlated with the logical relations between them. He gives the periodic table of chemical elements as an example of the richness of the field to be explored. The power of this two-dimensional visual display in generating systematic references concerning relations between its constituents indicates the latent potentiality of the mascent geometrical syntax.

There is however a question of "iconicity for whom". A well-known survey by Anne Rowe (The Making of the Scientist) found a high correlation between (1) visual imagery and experimental inclination, (2) nonvisual imagery and preference for theoretical science. Many theoretical scientists prefer not to use visual imagery -- which may explain their difficulty in communicating with other sectors of society. Don Fabun draws attention to the possibility that non-Americans may not find the display of concepts and their relations by grids or network structures very meaningful. Europeans, and particularly Orientals, are inclined to attach importance to areas. There does not seem to be muchextensive work on this guestion cross-culturally or with respect to different personality types. And yet, it may strongly influence the manner in which concepts are communicated, particularly if certain personality typos tend to be associated with certain disciplines.

Progress in understanding is made through the development of mental models or symbolic notations that permit a simple representation of a mass of complexities not previously understood. There is nothing new in the use of models to represent psycho-social abstractions. Jay Forrester, making this same point with respect to social systems, argues however that every person in his private life and in his community life uses models for decision-making. The mental image of the world around one, carried in each individual's head, is a model. One does not have a family, a business, a city, a government, or a country in his head. He has only selected concepts and relationships which he uses to represent the real system. But when the pieces of the system have been assembled, the mind is nearly useless for anticipating the dynamic behaviour that the system implies. Here the computer is ideal. It mill trace the interactions of any specified set of relationships. The mental model is fuzzy. It is incomplete. It is imprecisely stated. Furthermore, even within one individual, the mental model changes with time and with the flow of conversation. Even as a single topic is being discussed, each participant in a conversation is using a different mental model through which to interpret the subject. And it is not surprising that consensus leads to actionswhich produce unintended results. Fundamental assumptions differ but are never brought out into the open. [28]

These structured models have to be applied to any serially ordered data in card files, computer printout or reference books to make sense of that data. Is there any reason why these invisible structural models should not be visible to clarify differences and build a more comprehensive visible model? The greater the complexity, however, the more difficult it is to use mental models. 'For example, in discussing his examination of an electronic circuit diagram, Ivan Sutherland writes:

"Unfortunately, my abstract model tends to fade out when I get a circuit that is a little bit too complex. I can't remember what is happening in one place long enough to see what is going to happen somewhere else. My model evaporates. If I could somehow represent that abstract model in the computer to see a circuit in animation, my abstraction wouldn't evaporate. I could take the vague notion that "fades out at the edges" and solidify it. I could analyze bigger circuits. In all fields there are such abstractions. We haven't yet made any use of the computer's capability to "firm up" these abstractions. The scientist of today is limited by his pencil and paper and mind. He can draw abstractions, or he can tothink about them. If he draws them, they will be static, and if he just visualizes them they won't have very good mathematical properties and will fade out. With a computer, we could give him a great deal more. We could give him drawings that move, drawings in three or four dimensions which ho can rotate, and drawings with great mathematical accuracy. We could let him work with them in a may that he has never been able to do before. I think that really big gains in the substantive scientific areas are going to came when somebody invents new abstractions which can only be represented in computer graphical form." [29]

The primary function of visual representation is to facilitate understanding. To understand a concept is to apprehend correctly all the relations which determine its structure. This means not only grasping the fact that certain relations hold between certain entities but also seeing that the nature of the entities permits those relations to hold and that the global character of the concept determines their occurrence. [27]

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]