[alt.hypertext] Images vs. Text

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