grefen@sun14.cs.pitt.edu (Gregory Grefenstette) (04/02/91)
I'm doing work on hypertext visual interfaces and I would like to be able to prove what seems evident to me, that is, that people can scan information presented in a visual image-based form FASTER than in a plain textual form. But having little psych or human factors background, I don't know of any references that I could use, or even where to begin looking. Please send me some advice about sources for this type of research --Gregory Grefenstette
rick@hanauma.stanford.edu (Richard Ottolini) (04/03/91)
In article <10292@pitt.UUCP> grefen@sun14.cs.pitt.edu (Gregory Grefenstette) writes: > >I'm doing work on hypertext visual interfaces and I >would like to be able to prove what seems evident to me, >that is, that people can scan information presented >in a visual image-based form FASTER than in a plain >textual form. I don't know if this is relevant to your inquiry, but Chinese speed readers claim peak speeds about five times that of alphabetic readers. The fastest I heard from Chinese in soc.culture.china was 50,000 characters per minute and for English 5,000 words a minute. On the average a Chinese word is two characters. Chinese characters are more visual than alphabetic words. However, alphabetic speed readers see the whole word at time, rather the characters, so they can claim to be reading icons too. Chinese characters have the same horizontal width in contrast to alphabetic words, so readers of the later may slow down in predicting where the next word is.
dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) (04/03/91)
In article <10292@pitt.UUCP>, grefen@sun14.cs.pitt.edu (Gregory Grefenstette) writes: |> I'm doing work on hypertext visual interfaces and I |> would like to be able to prove what seems evident to me, |> that is, that people can scan information presented |> in a visual image-based form FASTER than in a plain |> textual form. It depends on the type of information and the space allowed to display the information. For example, it's much slower for me to decipher a pallette of icons that correspond to a set of operations than it is for me to decipher a text menu in the same space. -- ...David Elliott ...dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce ...(408)944-4073 ..."His lower lip waved poutily with defiance..."
cl@lgc.com (Cameron Laird) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr2.162821.21318@leland.Stanford.EDU> rick@hanauma.stanford.edu (Richard Ottolini) writes: . . . >>that is, that people can scan information presented >>in a visual image-based form FASTER than in a plain >>textual form. > >I don't know if this is relevant to your inquiry, but Chinese speed readers >claim peak speeds about five times that of alphabetic readers. The fastest >I heard from Chinese in soc.culture.china was 50,000 characters per minute >and for English 5,000 words a minute. On the average a Chinese word >is two characters. >Chinese characters are more visual than alphabetic words. However, alphabetic >speed readers see the whole word at time, rather the characters, so they can >claim to be reading icons too. Chinese characters have the same horizontal >width in contrast to alphabetic words, so readers of the later may slow down >in predicting where the next word is. Funny: I just came across this claim for the first time a couple of days ago, andin a completely dif- ferent context. What do professional linguists say on the subject? It surprised me a LOT when I saw it, because rapid reading can only be of what I'll call "internalized" tokens; if you're treating them as icons, then you're doing time-consuming cognitive processing. Is the whole curve shifted? Do "average" Chinese and Japanese literates read five times as fast as their Latin-alphabet counterparts? Why hasn't this come out in all the fuss about national models of public-school education (that is, why hasn't it come to my attention)? This seems like a subject that admits good, interesting experiments; have they been done? -- Cameron Laird USA 713-579-4613 cl@lgc.com (cl%lgc.com@uunet.uu.net) USA 713-996-8546
mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) (04/03/91)
In article <10292@pitt.UUCP>, grefen@sun14.cs.pitt.edu (Gregory Grefenstette) writes: >I'm doing work on hypertext visual interfaces and I >would like to be able to prove what seems evident to me, >that is, that people can scan information presented >in a visual image-based form FASTER than in a plain >textual form. I think I understand what you mean, but how you state your hypothesis probably oversimplifies a key point. Visual image information has more degrees of freedom in conveying information in a limited area of constant size, vs. text. It is therefore conceptually possible to convey more information in that limited area using visual means than textual means. One important difference is that text is read sequentially, whereas a visual image may be processed more holistically. In this respect a viewer may get the "big picture" faster than the reader, but apprehending all the small visual specifics in detail might take as much time as the reading the text. But it might seem faster to the viewer since they get some benefit sooner. (For instance, looking at a sales graph might quickly get across the general trend and some notion of the variation from month to month, but finding the exact amounts for each month in a graph could take as long or longer than referring to a table). The notion of greater degrees of freedom giving the *capability* for greater information density is important because whether that capability is turned into to a real difference is dependent upon the skill of the visual designer. A bad visual design may actually convey less information or take longer to convey it than a textual representation. (E.g. a graph of the %change in monthly growth of sales actually visually obsures information about the absolute values of sales). Obviously, bad textual representations can also obscure information, but it seems that given present educational systems in the US, people have more practice developing writing skills than visual design skills before coming to the job market. So it is important in addressing the superiority of visual presentation to textual to consider the backgrounds of the producers. This is one of the reasons why companies are often surprised when they use "graphics, icons, windows..." in their designs but people don't necessarily find them easy to use--often the people making the selection of the "graphics, icons, and window" weren't trained visual designers but just garden variety software developers. Meanwhile, another company with trained designers may make a big splash with their UI, composed of the same graphics, icons and window primitives but arrayed in a more thoughtful manner by experienced visual designers, (often even despite a poorer underlying representation created by less skilled programmers). An additional complication is that considerable information can be apprehended not by explicit mention in the text, or visual display but by a conventional reference to a body of widely known information. This information can thus be elicited rather than directly conveyed, but the effect on information density is effectively the same. The CYC project at MCC, and other investigations into natural language processing and "common sense" reasoning are applicable here. Much of this work is specifically aimed at linguistic (typically textual) elucidation of conventional wisdom I am not aware of any similar studies of this effect for visual information conventions though conventional use of principles of composition, color theory, and contrast theory is widely known and discussed in depth in Tufte. > But having little psych or human factors background, > I don't know of any references that I > could use, or even where to begin looking. With little HCI background, you might want to start with some things that are more accessible to the layman, such as Edward Tufte's book the "Visual Display of Quantitative Information", or his other book, "Envisioning Information". Don Norman's book, the "Psychology of Everyday Things", also has some useful lay information on the cognitive limitation of human perception. Another accessible and relevant book for the layman is "How to Lie with Statistics". The Tufte books are filled with useful references to more technical references, and you may also find the various publications of and conference proceedings sponsored by ACM SIGCHI society to be of use to you. A reference librarian should be able to help you find any of these books or journals and to narrow your search to particular domains of interest. You might also find information on this sort of thing in other related areas, such as statistics. For instance, I gave a paper on applying principles of graphic design to the creation of business graphics was presented at a Statistical Analysis System (SAS) Users Group International (aka SUGI) conference many years ago. You might find other nuggets of information of this sort in various proceedings of such conferences. Again a refernce librarian should be of help. Scott McGregor Atherton Technology
cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr2.180348.19733@smsc.sony.com> dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) writes: > >In article <10292@pitt.UUCP>, grefen@sun14.cs.pitt.edu (Gregory Grefenstette) writes: >|> I'm doing work on hypertext visual interfaces and I >|> would like to be able to prove what seems evident to me, >|> that is, that people can scan information presented >|> in a visual image-based form FASTER than in a plain >|> textual form. >It depends on the type of information and the space allowed to display >the information. >For example, it's much slower for me to decipher a pallette of icons >that correspond to a set of operations than it is for me to decipher a >text menu in the same space. Yes, the claim that pictures are always better than words seems to be far from self-evident to me. I suspect that there's more hypertext ideology than science to this particular claim. That isn't to say that a picture in the right place can't often make things much clearer than reams of text; but it's silly to expect pictures to replace words in communicating complex information. If that were the case, then we wouldn't have to wait for hypertext to initiate this superior form of communication--if picture books are better than books with words, then none of our books would have words in them. Even for describing simple tasks, words can be essential. The other day, I tried to reload the stapler built into my Xerox machine. Instead of directions, I found a bunch of icons that were supposed to tell me how to do it. I stood there for several minutes trying to figure these things out, then gave up and walked to another xerox machine. A few words, like "press here" would have been enormously helpful. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. | Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |cash@convex.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Sneaky Sanj ;-) (04/03/91)
In article <10292@pitt.UUCP> grefen@sun14.cs.pitt.edu (Gregory Grefenstette) writes: > >I'm doing work on hypertext visual interfaces and I >would like to be able to prove what seems evident to me, >that is, that people can scan information presented >in a visual image-based form FASTER than in a plain >textual form. Yes, this makes sense. I can process an image IN PARALLEL. I can see a picture of a horse and immediately I know it is a horse. Reading is done in serial, stimulus -> eye -> iconic mem -> short term -> cognitive processing <=> long term. See, in order to make sense of the word "horse" involves accessing letters, phonemes, AND THEN stored images. You can remove some chunks of overhead by using an image. That's why people love Macs!! and some of us like Windows too. ;-) To sum up, reading is comparable to doing floating point in software, while images is like using an FPU; it exploits hardware we already have. But text is better in that it is more semantically concentrated, ie. horse is five bytes, but a gif of a horse could be 50 000 or more. But you said you wanted throughput... >But having little psych or human factors background, >I don't know of any references that I >could use, or even where to begin looking. Try sci.psychology. >Please send me some advice about sources for this >type of research And post a summary of your replies... >--Gregory Grefenstette Ice sez "Sanjay Singh is dead..." -- "No one had the guts... until now!" $anjay $ingh Fire & "Ice" ssingh@watserv1.[u]waterloo.{edu|cdn}/[ca] ROBOTRON Hi-Score: 20 Million Points | A new level of (in)human throughput... !blade_runner!terminator!terminator_II_judgement_day!watmath!watserv1!ssingh!
thom@garnet.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (04/03/91)
Nothing is worse for understanding a complex issue than the issue described in terms of icons or pictures only. Nothing is worse for understanding a complex issue than the issue described in terms of words only. But pictures and words? and maybe sound? Now that can convey meaning. TV, Movies, most good magazines and books, spreadsheets with labels, everything written by E.R. Tufte. We aren't talking research here, we are talking common sense -- I realize that sort of approach is considered antathama sit in some circles but it does save a lot of time. Check out most of what Roger N. Shepard , Arnheim, McKim, DuChamp, etc have to say. It's all there. Might also check out Aaron's Code and consider the difference between a meaning generator and a meaning communicator. It's the difference between falling asleep in class and staying awake. --Thom Gillespie
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr3.031013.27762@watserv1.waterloo.edu> ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Sneaky Sanj ;-) writes: >That's why people love Macs!! Actually, I think there are systems better than Macs. Unfortunately, the systems which inspired Macs aren't available outside of Xerox like Tioga. >Try sci.psychology. Oh..... Not very good, too much noise. comp.cog-eng is bettter. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr3.031013.27762@watserv1.waterloo.edu> ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Sneaky Sanj ;-) writes: >In article <10292@pitt.UUCP> grefen@sun14.cs.pitt.edu (Gregory Grefenstette) writes: >> >>I'm doing work on hypertext visual interfaces and I >>would like to be able to prove what seems evident to me, >>that is, that people can scan information presented >>in a visual image-based form FASTER than in a plain >>textual form. > >Yes, this makes sense. I can process an image IN PARALLEL. I can see a >picture of a horse and immediately I know it is a horse. Yes, and that's very nice. But what does the picture _mean_? "Rent your horse here"? "Horse crossing"? "Don't forget to feed the horse"? "The horse is a large quadruped ruminant mammal"? "Horses were not indigenous to North America, but were imported by the Conquistadores"? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. | Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |cash@convex.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ck@voa3.VOA.GOV (Chris Kern) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr3.055318.16045@nas.nasa.gov> eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes: >Actually, I think there are systems better than Macs. Unfortunately, >the systems which inspired Macs aren't available outside of Xerox >like Tioga. Not true. I'm writing this on a Xerox 6085, which is a direct descendant of the Xerox Star, which is a direct descendant of the Xerox Alto. The environment has also been ported to SunOS. The Star, the 6085 and the software for SunOS all were or are sold by Xerox; I don't think they ever sold the Alto, although a few of them made their way outside the company. (I believe it was the Star that inspired the Macintosh.) -- Chris Kern ck@voa3.voa.gov ...uunet!voa3!ck +1 202-619-2020
jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) (04/04/91)
>Even for describing simple tasks, words can be essential. The other day, I >tried to reload the stapler built into my Xerox machine. Instead of >directions, I found a bunch of icons that were supposed to tell me how to >do it. I stood there for several minutes trying to figure these things out, >then gave up and walked to another xerox machine. A few words, like "press >here" would have been enormously helpful. Indeed! I have stared in frustration at the little ikons on the tags on clothing trying to figure out what temperature to use, whether to use bleach, etc. The little ikons are no help at best and downright misleading at worst. One could claim that this was just a lousy job of ikonography, but I ASSUME that some international standards committee agreed on them, so they must have thought they did a good job. I think companies like to use ikons on labels not because they work better than words but because it "solves" the multilingual marketing problem. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own, except in the realm of software engineering, in which case I've borrowed them from incredibly smart people.
raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr2.180348.19733@smsc.sony.com>, dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) writes: [about speed of info transfer for images versus text] > It depends on the type of information and the space allowed to display > the information. > > For example, it's much slower for me to decipher a pallette of icons > that correspond to a set of operations than it is for me to decipher a > text menu in the same space. In some current product design I've been incorporating text labels IN icons, and think this provides the best of both. Probably the biggest problem with icons is that they can be ambiguous, not giving new users/viewers a sufficient cue to have a good sense of which meaning the REALLY want to confer. Adding a bit of text solves this, and provides a natural way for people to begin associating the icon with the corresponding concept. Another advantage is that the image supports the text. It's often possible to use image info to allow using terser text than would be needed if using ONLY text. ------------------ Paul Raveling Raveling@Unify.com
mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr03.152708.147@convex.com>, cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes: >Yes, and that's very nice. But what does the picture _mean_? "Rent your >horse here"? "Horse crossing"? "Don't forget to feed the horse"? "The horse >is a large quadruped ruminant mammal"? "Horses were not indigenous to North >America, but were imported by the Conquistadores"? I don't understand how this is *necessarily* different between an image vs. a textual representation. This is not a matter of semantics, but of pragmatics. An image of a horse and the textual string "horse" have precisely the same semantics (*mean* the same thing), but the question of how the image or text is intended to be used is dependent upon the speaker's intent, the context of the conversation, and other situational aspects most often analyzed using "speech act" linguistic theory. Peter's apology to Wittgenstein belies an awareness of this point. So, I can't see how the representational form (picture vs. text) matters unless Peter is making a specific claim about the context in which the communication takes place, and is saying that a textual representation would have a conventional usage in that context, and that a pictorial representation not being conventionally used that way would therefore be confusing. If so, I do not agree that it is inherently more likely that text would be more conventional. A picture of a horse on a yellow diamond on a roadway is more conventionally used to mean "horse crossing" than the text string "horse" alone on a sign in that situation. Whether a picture or a text string is less ambiguous due to its conventional use in a given situation can go either way. Or does Peter claim that people would conventionally attempt to give more semantic meaning (i.e. give a whole sentance) with text than they bother to in general with pictures. I might agree, because picture production is often more time consuming, and *semantically* equivalent text often consumes less space. I am curious to understand if others assume the former interpretation or the latter. To get back to the original question about the superiority of pictures over text, let me note that while I am sure Peter had an intent to convey his position on this issue through his text, it wasnt' perceived by me. This does not at all mean that a graphic rendition would have improved the matter (i.e. graphics is not superior for all situations), but demonstrates that precise communication in both forms is troublesome even by skilled practitioners. Moreover, in evaluating the superiority or inferiority of a particular form, it is important to consider the "pragmatics" aspects of the situation such as existing conventions, the likelihood of skillful creation (by the sender) and interpretation (by the recipients), as well as the likely costs of incomplete or incorrect interpretation. Scott McGregor
davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) (04/05/91)
>>>>> On 3 Apr 91 15:27:08 GMT, cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) said: Peter> In article <1991Apr3.031013.27762@watserv1.waterloo.edu> Peter> ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Sneaky Sanj ;-) writes: Sneaky> Yes, this makes sense. I can process an image IN PARALLEL. I can see a Sneaky> picture of a horse and immediately I know it is a horse. Peter> Yes, and that's very nice. But what does the picture _mean_? "Rent your Peter> horse here"? "Horse crossing"? "Don't forget to feed the horse"? "The Peter> horse is a large quadruped ruminant mammal"? "Horses were not Peter> indigenous to North America, but were imported by the Conquistadores"? Of course this depends on the representation of the horse in the picture and the context around the picture. For instance: 1. A picture of horses near barn next to another picture of a map representing where the barn is. (I'm sure something could be arrived at to represent "rent".) 2. A picture of a sign with a horse over an X. 3. A picture of a person providing food for a horse. 4. This one shows the problem with language because I don't have any context for the word "ruminant" (I didn't look it up). I think an intelligently designed picture would convey the meaning to me. 5. Picture of world showing horses moving from Spain to North America. If you think about it, pictures can be as much of a language as text. Therefore, the same requirements are on those pictures as are on textual language. That is, you will only understand them if you have the context in which they are being applied (current surroundings and previous experience). Man has had a few thousands years of previous experience to "fine tune" textual language whereas the idea of using pictures is relatively new and, so, doesn't have that refinement. Trying to understand picture (or video!) language can be as much of a problem as trying to read (say) Chinese when you've only learned English unless the pictures (or videos!) has been intelligently designed to play upon universal ideas. Hypermedia systems should not focus on one type of medium (pictures in this case), but rather merge as many different mediums as possible. This will provide much more surroundings by which people can make the connection to previous experience. -- ==================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. (415) 691-6311 640 Clyde Ct. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mtn. View, CA 94043 ==================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"
jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) (04/05/91)
cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes: >In article <10292@pitt.UUCP>, grefen@sun14.cs.pitt.edu (Gregory Grefenstette) writes: >|> I'm doing work on hypertext visual interfaces and I >|> would like to be able to prove what seems evident to me, >|> that is, that people can scan information presented >|> in a visual image-based form FASTER than in a plain >|> textual form. >>For example, it's much slower for me to decipher a pallette of icons >>that correspond to a set of operations than it is for me to decipher a >>text menu in the same space. I would like to see you assign an icon for the operation of "compute the Delauney triangulation" or "apply duality map D" or "compute the Symmetric difference" or ... The assertion is just plain silly, as it amounts to the assertion that rebuses or pictograms are easier to understand than alphabetic languages. There is at least two thousand years of history which points the other way. However, there are situations in which people have notorious difficulty understanding information presented textually; qualitative information is foremost amoung these. Here a graphic display can be very helpful. Realize that people may be able to find pictures which they are very accustomed to faster than they are able to read the corresponding words in a box, but the words in a box approach is immensely more flexible and is more robust when novel concepts must be communicated. Jim Penny
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (04/05/91)
In article <jpenny.670789735@s.ms.uky.edu> jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) writes: >Realize that people may be able to find pictures which they are >very accustomed to faster than they are able to read the corresponding >words in a box, but the words in a box approach is immensely more >flexible and is more robust when novel concepts must be communicated. I believe this depends more on the type of concept rather than its novelty or complexity. People most often think in some verbal language, usually the language they learned in childhood. This is not always true, however. In specific situations, people may think in graphics or mathematics. (Of course, the ability to think in these terms may vary dramatically from one person to another -- not everyone is a daVinci or an Einstein -- and given the quality of public educatin system today, I would not be surprised to find that most Americans cannot think mathematically at all.) The ideal interface, I think, would minimize the amount of translation that the viewer has to do. To go back to the previous example of the horse, if the ideas that you wish to convey concern the gross anatomy of the horse, then a single picture may be preferable to any amount of description. The reason being that the user reading the description would attempt to build up an internal picture of the horse anyway. Similiarly, if mathematical equations are described in verbal terms, a translation step is involved. Expressing mathematical or vebal concepts in graphic terms also involves a translation step. Unless the concepts are very simple and the translation obvious, this step can be time-consuming and prone to error. That's why icons in well- designed computer programs are generally limited to representing simple concepts with clear analogies to real-world objects. A good example is the paint brush and other tools in a paint program: because they look like real-world tools, they create the illusion that the user is selecting a physical tool when he picks one of them. The underlying complexity of the code that implements the tool is hidden from the user. But if the software implemented a more complex function without an obvious real- world analogy -- let's say, an 8-by-8 Gaussian convolution -- an iconic representation would be a poor choice.
hultquis@nas.nasa.gov (Jeff P. M. Hultquist) (04/05/91)
Sneaky> Yes, this makes sense. I can process an image IN PARALLEL. I can see a Sneaky> picture of a horse and immediately I know it is a horse. Peter> Yes, and that's very nice. But what does the picture _mean_? Peter> "Rent your horse here"? "Horse crossing"? "Don't forget to feed Peter> the horse"? "The horse is a large quadruped ruminant mammal"? davidm> Of course this depends on the representation of the horse in davidm> the picture and the context around the picture. For instance: davidm> ... davidm> 4. This one shows the problem with language because I don't davidm> have any context for the word "ruminant" (I didn't look it davidm> up). I think an intelligently designed picture would convey davidm> the meaning to me. Yick! I think that davidm _should_ look up the word 'ruminant' and then give us his opinion. I find it difficult to believe that the power of text can be ever approached by 'point-and-grunt' user interfaces. Text gives us the power to develop and name abstract concepts; icons don't do this so well. -- -- Jeff Hultquist hultquis@nas.nasa.gov NASA - Ames Research Center (415) 604-4970 Disclaimer: "I am not a rocket scientist."
xiaoy@ecf.toronto.edu (XIAO Yan) (04/05/91)
In article <jpenny.670789735@s.ms.uky.edu> jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) writes: (Lines deleted...) >I would like to see you assign an icon for the operation of >"compute the Delauney triangulation" or "apply duality map D" >or "compute the Symmetric difference" or ... > >The assertion is just plain silly, as it amounts to the assertion that >rebuses or pictograms are easier to understand than alphabetic languages. >There is at least two thousand years of history which points the other >way. Ever learnt a language Called Chinese which doesn't use alphabetic letters? > >However, there are situations in which people have notorious difficulty >understanding information presented textually; qualitative information >is foremost amoung these. Here a graphic display can be very helpful. > >Realize that people may be able to find pictures which they are >very accustomed to faster than they are able to read the corresponding >words in a box, but the words in a box approach is immensely more >flexible and is more robust when novel concepts must be communicated. > >Jim Penny Damn right. Now when I return home, I don't look up street name and number anymore. -YX
folta@tove.cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (04/05/91)
I think one area in which pictures win out over prose is in describing relationships. I know that I am always running to a markerboard to draw diagrams to explain things. Everything ranging from how a filesystem is laid out or how a network is laid out to where mammals fall in the biological hierarchy. Imagine electronic circuits described in words! As another example, I am now taking a class in modal logic. We are always drawing diagrams of possible worlds to help our understanding. Words alone certainly don't hack it. (Although ideographs alone wouldn't hack it either.) Of course, things are often labelled by words in diagrams; they are not totally pictorial. But the words are connected with lines, placed inside different shapes and beside icons, even written in different fonts, etc.. And often we compress out unnecessary information by using pictures only. For example, if I am describing a network, I might draw two or three nodes on the network that are unlabeled, but whose shape tells you that they are PCs. They are not labelled, because they only represent the fact that there are lots of PCs hooked up. On the other hand, major nodes are labelled with names. I believe that diagrams and pictures have this power to indicate presence and at the same time anonymity, which allows you to focus more clearly on the big picture. As for palettes of words beating palettes of icons, it depends on the task. I know that in a drawing program, I find icons to be much more descriptive of the drawing tools than words would be. For example, in FreeHand, what would CONNECTOR mean? If you look at its icon, you see that it creates a point that joins a curving line segment and a straight line segment. And what does LINE mean, as opposed to STRAIGHT LINE or FREEHAND LINE? Also, once you have an icon, adding information to it is often very easy. For example, in FreeHand the tools draw shapes, by default, from corner to corner. If you enable an option to draw from the center, the icons change so that there is an x in the center of the shape. Without taking any more room, you have more information, and I think it is more intuitive than words would be. As another example, wordprocessors often have little icons that show little lines that are left-justified (ragged right), right-justified (ragged left), centered, and fully justified. I think these are clearer than words by a long shot. In this example, icons also eliminate problems with terminology. For example, what I call right-justified (meaning ragged left), other people use to mean fully-justified, with an implicit [left- and] right-justified. Similarly in drawing programs where FREEHAND LINE might mean lines that aren't necessarily straight to me, but straight lines at any angle to you. -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
alan@tivoli.UUCP (Alan R. Weiss) (04/06/91)
In article <10292@pitt.UUCP> grefen@sun14.cs.pitt.edu (Gregory Grefenstette) writes: > >I'm doing work on hypertext visual interfaces and I >would like to be able to prove what seems evident to me, >that is, that people can scan information presented >in a visual image-based form FASTER than in a plain >textual form. > >But having little psych or human factors background, >I don't know of any references that I >could use, or even where to begin looking. > >Please send me some advice about sources for this >type of research > >--Gregory Grefenstette Better yet, post it to the net. I would also be interested in intelligent discourse on the subject. _______________________________________________________________________ Alan R. Weiss TIVOLI Systems, Inc. E-mail: alan@tivoli.com 6034 West Courtyard Drive, E-mail: alan@whitney.tivoli.com Suite 210 Voice : (512) 794-9070 Austin, Texas USA 78730 Fax : (512) 794-0623 _______________________________________________________________________
jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) (04/06/91)
xiaoy@ecf.toronto.edu (XIAO Yan) writes: >In article <jpenny.670789735@s.ms.uky.edu> jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) writes: > (Lines deleted...) >>The assertion is just plain silly, as it amounts to the assertion that >>rebuses or pictograms are easier to understand than alphabetic languages. >>There is at least two thousand years of history which points the other >>way. > > Ever learnt a language Called Chinese which doesn't use alphabetic > letters? Of course there are two living counter-examples, Chinese which is not character oriented, but neither is it especially pictogram oriented either (most characters have long ago lost any pictorial content). A second partial example is Japanese which uses kanji, as well as katakana, hiragana, and romanji. This is not to be insulting to Japanese tradition, but it is almost incomprehensible that a people would insist on writing primarily in a foreign language. It is as if all Europeans still wrote only in church Latin. Other examples of pictogram languages are classical Mayan, old Egyptian. I am sure there are others. An example of a neither alphabetic nor pictographic writing is the cuneiform system of Sumeria. Nevertheless, a good case can be made that alphabetic or syllabic writing systems are superior to non-alphabetic systems. First, I know of no culture that willing converted from an alphabetic representation to a pictographic one. Second, there are many cultures that have partially or completly changed from pictographic to alphabetic representations, these include Korea (partially), and Vietnam. Other cultures have converted from complicated alphabets to simpler alphabets (e.g. Turkey). In every case, there is anecdotal evidence that it is easier to teach illiterate members of the culture to read and write using an alphabet than the previous system. None of the above should be taken as support for traditional English spelling. It is an atrocious system, and I would like to see it reformed. It is also true that adult literate readers of alpahabetic languages do not read a character at a time, but rather process far larger chunks. For defenders of the Chinese writing system I have three questions: 1) how many characters are in use today in written Chinese? 2) how many characters were in use 1000 years ago in written Chines? 3) If Chinese writing is inherently simpler than an alphabetic systems, how is this trend to be explained? In any event, this is a detour from the original writer who claimed that people could invariably process pictures faster than text: 1) It is not clear that Chinese characters are pictures in the sense the original poster intended. If they are considered to be pictures, then it is not clear that a word written in an alphabetic language is not a picture. 2) If pictures are inherently superior, consider the following series of questions: a) I will select at random a word from the dictionary: you may draw as many pictures as you would like, but no letters, to convey that word to a third party. Will this be easy? b) I will select at random a word from the dictionary; you may draw as many letters as you want to convey the word to a third party. Will this be easy? c) Which of scenerios a and b are a parlor game? 3) What does the following picture mean? _ _ / \ / \ / \ / \ \ / \ / \_/ \_/ ---------------------- (hint: it is seen in my kitchen) It appears on my dishwasher, and means heat dry!
jwtlai@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai) (04/06/91)
In article <jpenny.670886764@s.ms.uky.edu> jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) writes: >xiaoy@ecf.toronto.edu (XIAO Yan) writes: >> Ever learnt a language Called Chinese which doesn't use alphabetic >> letters? > >Of course there are two living counter-examples, Chinese which is >not character oriented, but neither is it especially pictogram oriented >either (most characters have long ago lost any pictorial content). > >A second partial example is Japanese which uses kanji, >as well as katakana, hiragana, and romanji. This is not to be insulting >to Japanese tradition, but it is almost incomprehensible that a >people would insist on writing primarily in a foreign language. >It is as if all Europeans still wrote only in church Latin. Before the introduction of Chinese characters, Japan had no native written language of note. This formed kanji. (Katakana and hiragana are phonetic alphabets.) Is it any surprise the Japanese still use kanji when writers of English use an alphabet which is very similar to the Roman alphabet? The smallest decomposable parts in the two systems have not changed a great deal. >For defenders of the Chinese writing system I have three questions: >1) how many characters are in use today in written Chinese? >2) how many characters were in use 1000 years ago in written Chines? >3) If Chinese writing is inherently simpler than an alphabetic systems, >how is this trend to be explained? Question 3 implies the existence of a trend (presumably an increase). I fail to see what the number of ideograms has on the simplicity of a system. Would using Morse code instead of the normal alphabet make things simpler, as there are only four letters in such a system (dot, dash, pause, long pause)? My point is that if we are to judge cognitive performance, we need a metric. "Simpler" and "more intuitive" are ill-defined terms to begin with.
thom@garnet.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (04/06/91)
Ok Jim, what does this picture mean and [hint: it was somewhere in your last posting] Next time you include a picture from your kitchen please include the context ... or at least the dryer. --Thom Gillespie
mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) (04/06/91)
In article <jpenny.670886764@s.ms.uky.edu>, jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) writes: > people would insist on writing primarily in a foreign language. > It is as if all Europeans still wrote only in church Latin. No, Japanese use only an icon set from China, not a foreign language. Many Europeans still write with the *Latin* character set. Others use a Greek character set or a mixture of the two. The Russians aren't using foreign languages when they use Cyrillic, but they are traditional ways of making marks which were introduced with other languages. The same is true for Japanese iconography. > First, I know of no culture that willing converted from an >alphabetic representation to a pictographic one. The accepted form for writing has often changed with the conquerors preferences. In the indian penisula and in Africa, there are places where writing styles have changed multiple times. The examples given below are merely selected from more recent history when European cultures impressed themselves upon Asian cultures. > Second, >there are many cultures that have partially or completly changed >from pictographic to alphabetic representations, these include >Korea (partially), and Vietnam. > For defenders of the Chinese writing system I have three questions: > 1) how many characters are in use today in written Chinese? > 2) how many characters were in use 1000 years ago in written Chines? > 3) If Chinese writing is inherently simpler than an alphabetic systems, > how is this trend to be explained? In general the number of words has expanded over time, if for no other reason than due to new inventions. New words often derive from compounding of old forms, from metaphors, and other forms of catecresis. Since Chinese words often map to a single icon, it should not be surprising that more Chinese icons are in existance today. Nor should it be surprising that in common english typography, accents, and other diacritical marks not typical in earlier english typography are now more frequently used due to adoption of words from other languages which do use them frequently. > 1) It is not clear that Chinese characters are pictures in the sense the > original poster intended. If they are considered to be pictures, > then it is not clear that a word written in an alphabetic language > is not a picture. Very true. I agree with most of the other comments (excised above) that stated that pictograph languages were not inherently easier to teach or use. > 2) If pictures are inherently superior, consider the following series > of questions: > a) I will select at random a word from the dictionary: > you may draw as many pictures as you would like, but no letters, > to convey that word to a third party. Will this be easy? > b) I will select at random a word from the dictionary; > you may draw as many letters as you want to convey the word to > a third party. Will this be easy? This is not the antithesis of a. A more correct antithesis is I show you a picture, choose one word and see if the listener draws the same picture I showed you. This is also a parlor game, though not one played very often any more, largely because of arguments concerning whether the drawings are identical enough. This says something about both skills in drawing vs. recognizing pictures, and also about precision of identity in pictures vs. words. c) Which of scenerios a and b are a parlor game? As I pointed out above, some of the parlor game aspect has to do with average people's (in)abilities to draw well quickly. Consider also that many people play a variant of dictionary in which a word is chosen, and everyone writes a definition. The word selector reads all the definitions, including the one from the dictionary, and people have to guess which one actually came from the dictionary. Note that this is essentially a strictly verbal game (neither alphabetic nor pictographic) but challenging nontheless. Which brings us to the final point: Neither pictures nor verbal (neither oral nor textual) processing can be held to be superior in all cases. Rather the most superior selection is a function of the skills of the sender of the communication, the skills of the receivers of the communication, and the conventional means for communicating the chosen subject matter in the chosen medium, place and time. Now, on a related topic, P.T Cox and T. Pietzykowski wrote in Proeedings International Computer Science Conference, 1988, pp 695-704, Using a Pictorial Representation to Combine Dataglow and Object Orientation in a Language Independent Programming Mechanism. "The standard textual representation of programming languages has many shorcomings, such as the abstract syntax inherited from Indo-European languages, enforced sequentiality, the necessity for variables, and the confusion between logical and mnemonic information... The use of a pictorial representaion for programming is proposed as a means for overcoming all of these shortcomings, incorporating the powerful features of AI languages and removing the bias towards Indo-European languages, making programming equallly accessible to users whose natural language relies on ideograms, such as Chinese... " The proliferation of microcomputers in the last decade has highlighted an important problem in the production of software, a problem normally referred to as "Chineese computing". Existing Algol-like programming languages, for long time the primary tool of software development, are intimately connected with the linguistic roots of Indo-European languages, based on a small symbolic alphabet and intricate syntax using punctuation symbols. Such languages are alien to programmers whose natural languages are rooted in the Chinese ideographic language paradigm. Lisp and Prolog rely less heavily on the syntactic conventions of Indo_European langauges, however, they do rely fundamentally on the concept of "variable", a meaninglyess symbol that represents some unknown object. Languages based on ideograms can express only meaningful concepts, so variables are unnatural in such langaugaes... "...[A] pictorial formalism...[is defined which] completely avoid[s] variables and the symbolic syntax inherited from Indo-European languages. The result is a powerful universal programming language which is equally accessible to users from all linguistic backgrounds... "The greatest shortcoming of all text based programming languages... are variables.Variables used to represent data in programming languages originated from logic, shich again stems from Indo-European languages. The special property of a vairable is that it is a symbol used to represent some unknown object. This concept is most natural in languages in which new entities can be constructed from smaller meaningless symbols (alphabet) that impose no meaning on the new entity. By contrast, languages based on ideograms can express only meaninglful concepts, so it is impossible to introduce a new sumbol that represents some unkonwn object. The existence of variables therefore make programming languages much less intuitive for those whose natural languages is ideographic such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean." <End of quote> Questions for readers: 1) Is, as is the authors claimed above, a pictorial programming language "*equally* acssible to users from all linguistic backgrounds"? Or does it skew the field the other way (i.e. against Indo-European language users)? 2) Is the concept of a variable really more difficult to users of ideographic language users? How are other mathematical uses of variables taught? Does mathematical literacy negate this alleged deficit? 3) If the availability of meaningless strings is the key to use of variables, why is it so important to choose meaningful names for variables instead of nonsense or conventionally meaningless names such as "X"? 4) Would you like to use such a pictographic programming language? Why or why not? Inquiring minds want to know... Scott McGregor
beb@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Brian E. Bradley) (04/06/91)
A recent poster noted that the CYC project, which is a fascinating attempt to create "common sense" in a computer, may be very useful in user interface applications. It certainly would be handy, but CYC also demonstrates that general common sense (rather than a small number of rules embedded in a product) is an enormous and expensive resource, requiring huge databases and considerable computing power. It is much too big to implement on a chip set for example, and the situation is unliklely to change for several years. And, the databases required would fill more than one CD-ROM in a full implementation: this approach to common sense is much larger than most implementations it would be installed to support! CYC deserves cheers for its ambitious attempt to tackle a problem which may not actually be solvable. Their particular approach to the problem may be widely available and widely used in a few years: more likely, some future applications will take the enormous set of data representations developed for CYC and cannibalize parts of it or massage their data into a more compressed form and arrangement using clever algorithms. So don't hold your breath waiting for it for your Mac II multimedia applications. But you've gotta love the CYC team for trying!
drraymond@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Darrell Raymond) (04/07/91)
In article <10292@pitt.UUCP>, grefen@sun14.cs.pitt.edu (Gregory Grefenstette) writes: > > I'm doing work on hypertext visual interfaces and I > would like to be able to prove what seems evident to me, > that is, that people can scan information presented > in a visual image-based form FASTER than in a plain > textual form. Before you show that pictures are faster or better than text, it might be wise to consider if you even know what the line of demarcation is between the two. I wouldn't hope to find a definitive answer anytime soon, mind you; this problem been a topic of intense debate for philosophers, art historians, psychologists, and students of literature for many years. However, considering it will be a reasonable way to sharpen your own notions. If you want to learn something about the topic, rather than simply look for evidence supporting your preconceptions, I suggest you start with Nelson Goodman's "Languages of Art". Essentially, Goodman divides languages into notational and analog classes. Notational languages are systems of discrete symbols with discrete referents - programming languages, for instance. Analog languages are systems of dense symbols with dense referents - like paintings. Analog languages use symbol systems in which all differences matter (i.e., brushstrokes) to express domains in which all differences matter (i.e., emotion). The notation/analog distinction has several advantages over the less precise and more subjective terms "picture" and "text". I've just completed a paper proposing the use of Goodman's notions for evaluating visual programming languages, entitled "Characterizing Visual Notations" (sumitted to the IEEE workshop on visual languages). I'm willing to send a draft copy to people who are interested in reading more about Goodman. -Darrell Raymond drraymond@daisy.uwaterloo.ca
adam@visix.com (04/07/91)
In article <jpenny.670886764@s.ms.uky.edu>, jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) writes: > (stuff) First, edit the goddamn newsgroups line. Second, you don't know what you're talking about. One small note about Chinese: try inventing a written language for one billion people who speak, say, a dozen mutually incomprehensible dialects, with hundreds of variations. Extra credit: make your language independent of pronounciation drift. Can you say phonemes? Can you say alphabet? Can you say alphabet independent of phonemes? Everything happens for a reason. If you assume the reason is there, and look for it, you will become a smart person. I'm not here to explain every reason you missed. Adam
davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) (04/08/91)
>>>>> On 4 Apr 91 22:03:55 GMT, hultquis@nas.nasa.gov (Jeff P. M. Hultquist) >>>>> said: Sneaky> Yes, this makes sense. I can process an image IN PARALLEL. I can see a Sneaky> picture of a horse and immediately I know it is a horse. Peter> Yes, and that's very nice. But what does the picture _mean_? "Rent Peter> your horse here"? "Horse crossing"? "Don't forget to feed the horse"? Peter> "The horse is a large quadruped ruminant mammal"? davidm> Of course this depends on the representation of the horse in the davidm> picture and the context around the picture. For instance: davidm> ... davidm> 4. This one shows the problem with language because I don't have any davidm> context for the word "ruminant" (I didn't look it up). I think an davidm> intelligently designed picture would convey the meaning to me. Jeff> I find it difficult to believe that the power of text can be ever Jeff> approached by 'point-and-grunt' user interfaces. Text gives us the Jeff> power to develop and name abstract concepts; icons don't do this so Jeff> well. Ah, but you're only thinking in terms of an iconic language. Is this all there is to a hypermedia language? Also, no one is going to understand all abstractions no matter how it is explained to them. Even in textual languages, we rely on things called "dictionary", "thesaurus", "encyclopedia", and so on when there are terms we don't understand. Nothing says that like concepts could not exist in other languages (like an iconic language). Also, remember how you learn a new language. You start by relating what you perceive as concepts in the new language to like concepts in some language you know. Eventually, though, you replace the reliance on the old language by directly working in the new language. Is there anything that says you can only do this with written/spoken languages? -- ==================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. (415) 691-6311 640 Clyde Ct. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mtn. View, CA 94043 ==================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"
davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) (04/08/91)
>>>>> On 5 Apr 91 21:26:04 GMT, jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) said: Jim> In any event, this is a detour from the original writer who claimed Jim> that people could invariably process pictures faster than text: Jim> 2) If pictures are inherently superior, consider the following series Jim> of questions: Jim> a) I will select at random a word from the dictionary: Jim> you may draw as many pictures as you would like, but no letters, Jim> to convey that word to a third party. Will this be easy? Jim> b) I will select at random a word from the dictionary; Jim> you may draw as many letters as you want to convey the word to Jim> a third party. Will this be easy? Probably an unfair test as its heavily weighted in favor of text. Let's even it up a little. Suppose you were trying to convey the word to 100 people, all of whom spoke/wrote a different language, and you had to convey the meaning to >80% of the people. Now would (a) or (b) be easier?? -- ==================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. (415) 691-6311 640 Clyde Ct. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mtn. View, CA 94043 ==================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"
sfp@mars.ornl.gov (Phil Spelt) (04/10/91)
(LOTS of stuff deleated) >3) What does the following picture mean? > > > _ _ > / \ / \ > / \ / \ > \ / \ / > \_/ \_/ > ---------------------- > > (hint: it is seen in my kitchen) > It appears on my dishwasher, and means heat dry! IMHO, the above picture really IS part of a parlor game. This whole issue is wasting bandwidth, because the fundamental issue is not being addredded: *WHAT* information is to be ocnveyed? Pictures are fine for *SOME* things. Moreover, the problem with the above "picture" is that the *CONTEXT* is missing!Properly drawn (I recognize the limitatins of an ASCIIgram!) and seen on a dishwasher, most people would be able to recognize what that symbol means. A good esample of the *PROPER* (IMHO) use of pictures is in the road/highway symbols used to convey information: People crossing, deer crossing, the infamous "banned" symbol, table utensils for diners, and on and on and on . . . The point is, that these symbols, *IN THEIR PROPER CONTEXT*, provide lots of information which is not dependent on ANY language, and which can communicate to people who speak a variety of languages! Will this (IMHO) *DEFINITIVE* analysis end this discussion??? Probably not (IMHO) 8=) . ============================================================================= MIND. A mysterious form of matter secreted by the brain. Its chief activity consists in the endeavor to asscertain its own nature, the futility of the attempt being due to the fact that it has nothing but itself to know itself with. -- Ambrose Bierce ============================================================================= Phil Spelt, Cognitive Systems & Human Factors Group sfp@epm.ornl.gov ============================================================================ Any opinions expressed or implied are my own, IF I choose to own up to them. ============================================================================
mk3c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Melinda J. Klump) (04/16/91)
Jeff writes:
*****
I find it difficult to believe that the power of text can be
ever approached by 'point-and-grunt' user interfaces. Text
gives us the power to develop and name abstract concepts;
icons don't do this so well.
--
--
Jeff Hultquist
*****
then what do you call mathematics? :-)
michael j pastor iii
guest on melinda's account
mk3c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Melinda J. Klump) (04/16/91)
Scott McGregor Asks: 1) Is, as is the authors claimed above, a pictorial programming language "*equally* acssible to users from all linguistic backgrounds"? Or does it skew the field the other way (i.e. against Indo-European language users)? I think it has to do more with cultural connotations of pictures rather than the language behind the culture. 2) Is the concept of a variable really more difficult to users of ideographic language users? How are other mathematical uses of variables taught? Does mathematical literacy negate this alleged deficit? When you think of numbers (and +/-* type symbols) as one language, and letters another, this conflict is lessened. If we only had numbers to work with when trying to form a mathematical formula and couldn't use letters to represent variables, then we would have a problem. Which leads into your question on meaningless strings... 3) If the availability of meaningless strings is the key to use of variables, why is it so important to choose meaningful names for variables instead of nonsense or conventionally meaningless names such as "X"? It isn't "so important" but it lessens one step in translation. If I told you that a + b = c and I told you that red + blue = purple, which one would you understand faster/easier/more meaningfully? (This same equation could be used totally pictorally using squares of red and blue and purple for example) 4) Would you like to use such a pictographic programming language? Why or why not? Inquiring minds want to know... No more than I would LISP, which I am currently learning, and which I believe is entirely bogged down in words' meanings. Which shows that the pre-conceived "meanings" of the strings gets in the way of my learning and implenting the language, much like the chinese problem, except this is the indo-european version. There is also no known universal pictorial language that can express the same number of basic concepts that exist in English or Chinese ( or any other language type) that wouldn't make my task twice as hard to learn a language that could be expressed in a language I already use as my basis for communication. I would have to learn the pictorial language first, then the programming that uses it. An ideal language/alphabet would be one that combined aspects of both: for example as one that does this somewhat, Sanskrit I believe uses a horizontal line (icon) to represent the root/basis of a word, with consonants below the line and vowels above. Using that rule alone, I could semi-decipher Sanskrit a lot more than than I could English that has no universal visual key like that: all the vowels look different and can be placed anywhere. That also brings up the concept of dimensions with language: Sanskrit utilizes a horizontal and vertical axis to express itself. An icon-string hybrid language would also have to utilize such to give it enough flexibility to be representative/useful. One could visualize a sheet of graph paper with the narrative/programming beginning either in the center or one of the corners and continuing in whatever other directions thereafter. As an example: We are programming in the hybrid language on a graph with the axis in the center of the paper/screen. The upper left corner defines the variables, the more global, the closer to the center. Functions are in the upper left, global variables centralized again. The "body" (an example of present visual keys in a non-visual language today) is in the lower left. Programming in this fashion allows us to program non-sequentially if we want to. Visual clues and language do/can not limit themselves to one dimension Scott McGregor As a user and not a programmer observing this discussion: I use Macs a lot. They are very easy to use using windows and icons. But I can't use my macintosh without the words (under/with) the icons to explain which sub-set I am using. I have about 10 art programs in my files, and I use different programs for different pieces (depending on what I want to do). I save all my programs on one disk/folder/storage area and my art on another. It is easy to sort out all of my files using pictures within pictures (icons in folders in folders for example) using a nesting or branching looking process/set-up visually. I have 25 pieces of art in one file, 7 being A program, 8 being B, 3 - C, 4 - D, etc. All art programs have universally (for the most part all types of programs) picked an icon to represent a "document" : a page of paper with a corner folded down. Then I can sort out my programs from my documents. I couldn't however, sort out my A documents from my B documents based on that alone. So the programmers have sub-iconed each icon with an icon inside to represent that it was an A program that created it, or a B document, etc. One thing I have come across as a difficulty though is a "generic art " or "pict" document: it has no sub-icon, just the icon of "document". So consequently, I cannot tell that it is an art document by looking at it. Now if all art programs adopted a universal sub-icon that showed it was an art document first, then they used a sub-sub-icon to show what program created it, my life would be a lot easier. Nesting and branching is the key to happiness :-) That is my example/problem/boon with icons so far. michael j pastor iii guest on melinda's account
jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) (04/17/91)
Scott McGregor Asks: >1) Is, as is the authors claimed above, a pictorial programming language >"*equally* acssible to users from all linguistic backgrounds"? Frankly, I don't believe this to be the case. I know that a picture of an armadillo has a different connotation to a Texan than it does to a native of New York city, and I doubt that it has much connotation at all to a native Chinese. On a less frivolous basis, I have read that the trash can icon went unrecognized in some cultures. One would have to do rather extensive testing to be sure that the pictures would be perceived in the same way. It would seem to be about the same effort as finding a bilingual programmer to translate text for you. >2) Is the concept of a variable really more difficult to users of ideographic >language users? I have no idea, I do not think that ideographic languages are substantially different from alphabetic languages, except that they are harder to learn to write and possibly to read. This is also beside the point in that the question was originally images versus text. I suspect the original poster used images as a synonym for "pictures". For, clearly text is an image, in the sense that we are receiving it in a visual fashion. I was objecting to the use of pictures as a substitute for text, not the particular fashion the in which the text was written. >3) If the availability of meaningless strings is the key to use of variables, >why is it so important to choose meaningful names for variables instead of >nonsense or conventionally meaningless names such as "X"? I am NOT the one saying that a meaningless string should be chosen. I do not accept idea of "sufficient context" that keeps coming up. It is true that given enough time and a medium which can be sensed and produced, people could probably learn to communicate with any convention. I.e., those little novelty crickets could be used to get a person to do anything he would otherwise be willing to do by clicking once for yes and twice for no. This would be communication. But this is the same as a computer scientist arguing that since all computation can be reduced to a Turing machine that everyone should be REQUIRED to program only on it. Or a mathmatician saying that everything should be reduced to Goedel numbers. While all of these are true, these facts have nothing whatsoever to do with practicality. Most of us spend much of a lifetime learning several means of communications. Anyone who suggests that we must learn another one should provide convincing reasons that the methods we are currently using are not sufficient and that their method is better. >4) Would you like to use such a pictographic programming language? Why or >why not? Inquiring minds want to know... I don't know. The only way to tell would be to use such a system for several years. As several people have pointed out, drawing is difficult, and if I have to draw a symbol for every possible notion, I suspect that most of the symbols I would end up drawing would just be words. I have seen descriptions of a system in which programs could be viewed at various levels of abstraction, i.e. when you were writing top-down style code you wrote a description, whien you created a block you wrote a description, etc. Then when the program was reviewed you could jump down as many levels of abstraction as needed to understand the task at hand. This in some way sounds useful. Now an addendum: I do not deny that pictures are useful. As someone pointed out, if I were to teach gross anatomy of a horse, I would like to have a picture of a horse nearby. However, I would not like to teach this anatomy by showing 5000 pictures of horses and saying say ``feathered'' or ``featherless'' until a person said ``Aha, I see.'' Any such demonstation have a picture, but would also have a bunch of words with lines pointing to parts of the picture, and a dictionary of definitions of the words. And it would be rather gruesome to use a set of pictures to teach the concept of cannon bone. There are useful reasons to use pictures in a computer interface: 1) The intended audience could be pre-literate. 2) The intended audience could come from the writer's culture but be non-literate. 3) The intended audience could simply prefer seeing the pictures, either as a relief from a day spent looking mostly at words, or as some part of a religious belief. 4) The intended audience might not read the writer's language. I certainly see nothing wrong with 1) through 3a). 3b) is a matter of taste, but it certainly seems to require enormous costs in terms of the amount of memory needed for the pictures compared to equivalent text. 4) is often claimed, but if it were indeed true, the program would be so intuitive to use that no manual was needed at all. I have certainly never seen such a program. Further, I do not believe that there is a set of pictures that has the same meaning to people from disparate cultures. However, the original poster said that his purpose was speed of use. This is certainly not going to be gained by using a pictorial interface. Firstly, if speed is the reason that you are doing something, a 'point and grunt' interface is not going to work because the mechanics of using one are even slower than typing. Secondly, if it takes a long time to decode a word, it is not because it takes longer for a word to be seen than a picture. Decoding the meaning of a picture will take at least as long, and since most of us have a great deal of practice decoding words, it will probably take longer to decode the picture. If I were to care about speed of response, I would not use either a purely pictorial or a purely alphabetic interface. I would ring whatever bell I could to draw the user's attention to the fact that the computer needed an immediate reponse (he may not be looking at the screen). I would blink whatever it was that demanded the immediate response. I would (if possible) also draw it in red letters. Finally, I would use some kind of 'hot key ' interface for the {hopefully small} set of responses the user could make. Finally, someone said that pictures could be used, and a dictionary provided to translate the pictures as needed. This raises another problem, namely; how is a dictionary of pictures to be arranged? (Yes I know that Chinese dictionaries are arranged by principal strokes and radicals, but just what are the principal strokes in a picture of a horse?)
mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) (04/18/91)
In article <oc2hMlK00Vpb4JPVZR@andrew.cmu.edu> michael j pastor iii write: <34980@athertn.Atherton.COM> Distribution: na Organization: Class of '91, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 115 In-Reply-To: <34980@athertn.Atherton.COM> Scott McGregor Asks: > 1) Is, as is the authors claimed above, a pictorial programming language > "*equally* acssible to users from all linguistic backgrounds"? Or does > it skew the field the other way (i.e. against Indo-European language > users) >> I think it has to do more with cultural connotations of pictures rather >> than the language behind the culture. The authors (Cox & Pietrzykowski) claimed pictorial programming languages were superior, not because the pictures were well chosen, but because the pictures don't require the use of the concept of variables, which they claim is a difficult concept in languages with ideograms since it is not possible to compose "a meaningless string" to represent a variable. This is the question I would like to hear comments on. Was this posting meant to agree with them, or disagree with them? > 2) Is the concept of a variable really more difficult to users of ideographic > language users? How are other mathematical uses of variables taught? > Does mathematical literacy negate this alleged deficit? >> When you think of numbers (and +/-* type symbols) as one language, and >> letters another, this conflict is lessened. If we only had numbers to >> work with when trying to form a mathematical formula and couldn't use >> letters to represent variables, then we would have a problem. That is exactly the author's point--that iconic languages don't have letters, so variables can't be represented. The author's suggestion is that algebraic notation is a second language, but a second language more akin to Indo-European languages, and thus easier for Indo-Europeans to master. But is this true? Does the average asian-language speaker have more difficulty learning symbolic algebra? What evidence supports or refutes the authors' suggestions > 3) If the availability of meaningless strings is the key to use of variables, > why is it so important to choose meaningful names for variables instead of > nonsense or conventionally meaningless names such as "X"? > It isn't "so important" but it lessens one step in translation. If I > told you that a + b = c and I told you that red + blue = purple, which > one would you understand faster/easier/more meaningfully? (This same > equation could be used totally pictorally using squares of red and blue > and purple for example) C&P seem to claim that "a", "b" and "c" are better variables because they carry no predefined meanings. "Red", "Blue", "Purple" clearly carry some meaning from the color world. I would suspect that in a program about joining colored areas, choosing names such as "red-color-area" and "blue-color-area" or even simply "red" or "blue" would be prefered to the use of "a" and "b" as variables in such a program. But this is conflict with the statement C&P make that variables are more naturally composed from meaningless nonsense strings. In other words, don't we prefer variables to carry some meaning in practice, and not merely act as placeholders? Scott McGregor Atherton Technology mcgregor@atherton.com
thom@garnet.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (04/18/91)
In article <jpenny.671843702@s.ms.uky.edu> jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) writes: >Scott McGregor Asks: > > deleted stuff... > >Now an addendum: > >I do not deny that pictures are useful. > > deleted stuff... > >There are useful reasons to use pictures in a computer interface: > >1) The intended audience could be pre-literate. >2) The intended audience could come from the writer's culture but > be non-literate. >3) The intended audience could simply prefer seeing the pictures, > either as a relief from a day spent looking mostly at words, > or as some part of a religious belief. >4) The intended audience might not read the writer's language. > > deleted stuff... > >Secondly, if it takes a long time to decode a word, it is not because it >takes longer for a word to be seen than a picture. Decoding the >meaning of a picture will take at least as long, and since most of us have >a great deal of practice decoding words, it will probably take longer to decode >the picture. Granted I 'culled' from Jim's thoughts/words, but what the hell, it's email right? 1 Point: The primary means of communication today is TV, print isn't even close, words are the 'illustration' on TV, not pictures. Pictures aren't just useful, they are indispensible. 1 Question to Jim and the other 'text leaners': Can you and do you draw? ************************** My guess is that you can't and don't because you can't. It took you at least 10 years to learn to use words well -- words are much more difficult to learn to use than pictures. Some one learning to use a picture language or a text/picture language will have to expend some energy -- tool using is tough. Remember that when "The Birth of the Nation" previewed people ran crying from the theaters because of the close-ups of heads, they had never seen a 10 foot head. The filmic techniques used by Orson Wells in Citizen Cane resulted in it being a flop with the viewers because they couldn't 'read' the message -- today it's a masterpiece and everyone uses his techniques, the viewers understand the language, they learned. The only reason there are computer screens with only text on them is because of technical limitations, not because text is better. My guess is that even in research areas we will 'run' the experiment and 'see' what the experimenter 'saw' in the first place, and if we can't 'see' it, it's because it we have a different 'view'. There will be 'connecting text' for the visualizations and the auralizations, but it will be just for illumination. And yes, I can read and I can draw. --Thom
cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr17.204748.8994@agate.berkeley.edu> thom@garnet.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) writes: >The primary means of communication today is TV, print isn't even close, words >are the 'illustration' on TV, not pictures. Pictures aren't just useful, they >are indispensible. You're kidding, right? What do you mean, "TV is the primary means of communication today"? If drivel is communication, and the number of people watching the drivel decides whether it is "primary", then well, yes TV is a primary means of communication. Look, it all depends on what you want to communicate. If you want people to learn what it's like in the arctic, then a show about "The Land of the Polar Bear" might be just the thing. If you want to teach quantum physics, then pictures won't do. They won't do because the concepts of quantum physics are too abstract for pictures. >1 Question to Jim and the other 'text leaners': >Can you and do you draw? Yes and no. I can't draw freehand, but I _love_ to put illustrations in my books (software manuals) that I've created with packages like MacDraw or FrameMaker. Pictures have their place; they illustrate, they illuminate words. They don't replace words. Can you imagine having this discussion in pictures? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. | Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |cash@convex.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) (04/18/91)
thom@garnet.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) writes: >In article <jpenny.671843702@s.ms.uky.edu> jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) writes: >>Scott McGregor Asks: >> >> deleted stuff... >> >>Now an addendum: >> >>I do not deny that pictures are useful. >> >> deleted stuff... >> >>There are useful reasons to use pictures in a computer interface: >> >>1) The intended audience could be pre-literate. >>2) The intended audience could come from the writer's culture but >> be non-literate. >>3) The intended audience could simply prefer seeing the pictures, >> either as a relief from a day spent looking mostly at words, >> or as some part of a religious belief. >>4) The intended audience might not read the writer's language. >> >> deleted stuff... >> >>Secondly, if it takes a long time to decode a word, it is not because it >>takes longer for a word to be seen than a picture. Decoding the >>meaning of a picture will take at least as long, and since most of us have >>a great deal of practice decoding words, it will probably take longer to decode >>the picture. >Granted I 'culled' from Jim's thoughts/words, but what the hell, it's email >right? >1 Point: >The primary means of communication today is TV, print isn't even close, words >are the 'illustration' on TV, not pictures. Pictures aren't just useful, they >are indispensible. I disagree with this assertion. Every time someone brings this up, the networks start to belive it, and turn off the sound. This generally leads to shows which are vastly unpopular. NBC has done it at least twice, heavily hyped for football games, and both have been big ratings losers, this despite the fact that the sound was not turned off completely, only the announcer's voice was removed. I believe that the words are an integral part of the television (and movie) experience, and probably the most important part of the experience. I could easily conceive of a television dispensing with the pictures (in fact I call it a `radio'), but find it hard to believe that many people would watch television without the words. In fact, I think that it is the presence of the words, and equally the music which tell us how the pictures are to be interpreted. I know that for me at least, horror films are much less horrifying without sound. To paraphrase ``I'm Gonna Get You Sucka'', a superhero aint't nothing without his music. Watching CSPAN without sound would qualify for alt.boredom (of course my wife asserts that it does with the sound on.) >1 Question to Jim and the other 'text leaners': >Can you and do you draw? >************************** >My guess is that you can't and don't because you can't. It took you at least 10 >years to learn to use words well -- words are much more difficult to learn to >use than pictures. Some one learning to use a picture language or a >text/picture language will have to expend some energy -- tool using is tough. I am not real good, but can draw representational art to the point of recognizability. I am especially not good at drawing things from memory or imagination. I have worked at it sporadically over the years, but find that I am better at plastic arts. I do quite a bit of wood working as a hobby, and do like to use both low relief and chip carving as decorative touches. Further, I have real interests in computational geometry, which has a strong graphic component, and must frequently draw as an aid to the imagination. 2) For the picture leaners--Wouldn't it be better to communicate by a series of moving statues? After all people have historically had a great deal of difficulty understanding perspective? I think that we are just passing through a phase in which two-dimensional substitutes for four-dimensional stuctures are used as a matter of convenience. ;-) >The only reason there are computer screens with only text on them is because of >technical limitations, not because text is better. My guess is that even in >research areas we will 'run' the experiment and 'see' what the experimenter >'saw' in the first place, and if we can't 'see' it, it's because it we have a >different 'view'. There will be 'connecting text' for the visualizations and >the auralizations, but it will be just for illumination. I think your guess is wrong. Even in the most mundane cases, features are simply too hard to detect without first being told what to look for. I have sequences of pictures having only 8, 10, 12,... 20 lines (or equivalently segments) in them. I would be glad to email them in PostScript from to anyone who thinks that they can decode the meaning of say the first 3 in each series. In the work that I do, and I suspect in the work that most of us do, pictures are relegated to illumination for very good reasons; it is simply impossible to convey most things without textual explanation, and in fact the amount of explanation is usually large. Try to draw a picture of a continuous non-differentiable curve, or of a quark or to illustrate the difference between the strong and weak operator topologies. Show these pictures to an untrained audience-- how far do you think they will get in perceiving the meaning. >--Thom
mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) (04/19/91)
In article <jpenny.671992855@s.ms.uky.edu>, jpenny@ms.uky.edu (Jim Penny) writes: > I have sequences of pictures having only > 8, 10, 12,... 20 lines (or equivalently segments) in them. I would be glad > to email them in PostScript from to anyone who thinks that they can decode > the meaning of say the first 3 in each series. I hope no one seriously believes that these provide tests that prove the superiority of text over graphics. If anyone does, I am willing to offer sets of text that I have written (and sometimes posted) that are 8, 10, 12,...20 lines long (but equally stripped from context). I would be glad to email them in ascii form to anyone who thinks that they can decode the meaning of say the first 3 in each series. I think that given my limited writing skills, specialized knowledge, etc. that many people wouldn't have the slightest idea what I was talking about (a situtation that I have frequently observed with regards to some of my even longer writings). I don't think this proves that text is more impoverished than images--rather it might say more about my inability to use it well, and the lack of shared knowledge (context) between me and the readers. Part of that knowledge might include knowledge of the language in which my selections are written. Under similar circumstances it should be no surprise that random images might fail to communicate too. > I suspect in the work that most of us do, pictures are relegated to > illumination for very good reasons; it is simply impossible to convey > most things without textual explanation, and in fact the amount of > explanation is usually large. And of course, sometimes large explanations are unacceptable. No doubt many news readers have already skipped this posting due to its length. Certainly very few people will read a lengthy user manual for a video game before trying it. Words have their place, and so do pictures. Neither can completely substitute for the other in all cases. > Try to draw a picture of a continuous non-differentiable curve, > or of a quark or to illustrate the difference between the strong and > weak operator topologies. Show these pictures to an untrained > audience-- how far do you think they will get in perceiving the > meaning. It seems obvious to me that a key feature of this is the requirement of an untrained audience! How many untrained people would understand an equally brief textual discussion of these! Interestingly enough, most introductory physics classes include lots of diagrams, and particularly, Feynman World Diagrams are frequently used to help people understand quarks and particle interactions. Most introductory texts in calculus show cartesian curves with tangents indicated to illustrate derivatives, and areas under the curve to indicate integrals. In fact, in both arenas, it is not until you get to particularly high level discussions that diagrams drop out--and at those high levels, it is often the direct manipulation of symbols (equations, formal terms, etc.) that the higher level work is concerned with! In other words, experts share a context that novices do not--context is critical to understanding--until text or graphics are grounded in context they are not understandable. Sometimes text keys are better grounded, and sometimes images are, and often times a combination helps elucidate context and concepts better than either alone. For those who think text is always unambiguous, even stripped of context, What are "Prescient Agents"? Scott McGregor Atherton Technology mcgregor@atherton.com
beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede) (04/20/91)
cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes: >Can you imagine having this discussion in pictures? Not even remotely. This sentence is a real crusher, and should neatly end this string (of course, it won't . . . . :->). -- Mike Beede SCTC beede@sctc.com 1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100 Arden Hills, MN 55112 (612) 482-7420
thom@garnet.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (04/21/91)
In article <1991Apr20.163130.6642@sctc.com> beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede) writes: >cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes: > >>Can you imagine having this discussion in pictures? > >Not even remotely. This sentence is a real crusher, and should neatly >end this string (of course, it won't . . . . :->). Having this discussion in pictures would be called a movie, a video, etc. We do it everyday, it is the normal course of communication. The other thing to consider in this discussion of images vs text is how our minds work. The question being do we have text minds or image minds? I don't think in text any more than I think in mathematical notation. I do use text and mathematical notation to express certain thoughts, to communicate. My mind does seem to work with images best, and at best I'd say I have a "multi-media" mind. --Thom Gillespie
ken@csis.dit.csiro.au (Ken Yap) (04/21/91)
>> 2) Is the concept of a variable really more difficult to users of ideographic >> language users? How are other mathematical uses of variables taught? >> Does mathematical literacy negate this alleged deficit? > >... > >That is exactly the author's point--that iconic languages don't have >letters, so variables can't be represented. The author's suggestion is >that algebraic notation is a second language, but a second language more >akin to Indo-European languages, and thus easier for Indo-Europeans to >master. But is this true? Does the average asian-language speaker >have more difficulty learning symbolic algebra? What evidence supports >or refutes the authors' suggestions While Chinese and some other Asian languages are ideographic, in practice this has no bearing on the discussion. Childrens' magazines in Chinese often have running features illustrating the evolution of various characters from the picture of the object represented, e.g. the character for door evolved from a drawing of the gates, etc. The average Chinese reader is aware of the pictoral origins of Chinese, but when Chinese is used in everyday life, it is just as symbolic as a Western language, because civilization relies a lot on abstraction. The phrase for "square root", for example, is literally "square root". It was a Westerner who pointed out to me that the Chinese phrase for "immediately" is literally "on horse". I had been making verbal exchanges with that token all my life without stopping to think about its origins, just like the average Frenchman doesn't stop to analyse "tout suite". So I would not expect any cultural dis/advantage for handling symbols. Ideographic languages may be faster to read, I don't know.
aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) (04/22/91)
In article <1991Apr21.072316.19144@csis.dit.csiro.au> ken@csis.dit.csiro.au (Ken Yap) writes: >just like the average Frenchman doesn't stop to analyse >"tout suite". In fact the phrase "I couldn't care less" has become so habitual that people often say "I could care less" to mean the same thing without realising that they've just reversed the meaning. ____ \/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk \ / /\__/ Part straight. Part gay. All queer. \/
beb@media-lab.media.mit.edu.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Brian E. Bradley) (04/24/91)
I do not believe the statement about crying people fleeing "Birth of a Nation" in distress over their viewing of "giant heads": they had been seeing them in films for over twenty years by then! Not to mention "larger-than-life" busts, statuary, paintings, etc... Another Urban Legend from the Past...
thom@garnet.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (04/24/91)
In article <5706@media-lab.media.mit.edu.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> beb@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Brian E. Bradley) writes: > > I do not believe the statement about crying people fleeing "Birth of a >Nation" in distress over their viewing of "giant heads": they had been seeing >them in films for over twenty years by then! Not to mention "larger-than-life" >busts, statuary, paintings, etc... > > Another Urban Legend from the Past... I'm sure that at MIT you can find a copy of "The Elements of Friendly Software Design" by Paul Heckel. Either edition will do. The more recent one is the more interesting. The essense of what Heckel says is that th engineers don't know what has happened in the past and will not be the ones to design the new media in the future just as the engineers eventually stopped being significant in the design of the both the film and TV media. If you have never seen a 10 foot head move and talk it might be quite startling ... try to imagine. I also mentioned "The Birth of the nation " film with Citizen Kane and Wells use of unusual film techniques which the viewers didn't understand. Do you dispute that? --Thom Gillespie