bagwill@swe.ncsl.nist.gov (Bob Bagwill) (04/04/91)
IMHO, one use for visualization will be 'garbage picking', i.e. going through
existing (low-cost) data sets looking for new goodies. Most of us can't
afford to build a radio telescope, but with a workstation, software, and
CD-ROM's (or equivalent) containing "free" (already collected and paid for
by someone else) data, you've got a virtual telescope on your desk.
A side-effect of visualization technology might be that scientists
will start collecting data with the idea that it must be visualizable.
On the one hand, the synthetic effort necessary to pre-visualize the data
might lead to new insights.
On the other hand, scientists may ignore useful data because it doesn't make
a pretty picture. Speaking from zero knowledge, I would guess that
grant committees and other investors like pretty pictures. Scene from
NSF committee of the future :-)
And opening our fabulous Spring Visualization line-up is
Gizmo Gearloose of PolyTech with his `Visualization of the
Distribution of Atypical Incisor Formation in Lower
Mammals'. Rendered with the exciting XIPAR multi-
dimenionsal shader, his creation uses a daring palette of
hot pinks and blues on a black background. Way to go, Gizmo!
Bob Bagwillmeltsner@crd.ge.com (Kenneth J Meltsner) (04/04/91)
In article <1151@durer.cme.nist.gov>, bagwill@swe.ncsl.nist.gov (Bob Bagwill) writes: [... stuff deleted ...] |>On the one hand, the synthetic effort necessary to pre-visualize the data |>might lead to new insights. |> |>On the other hand, scientists may ignore useful data because it doesn't make |>a pretty picture. Speaking from zero knowledge, I would guess that |>grant committees and other investors like pretty pictures. Scene from |>NSF committee of the future :-) |> |> And opening our fabulous Spring Visualization line-up is |> Gizmo Gearloose of PolyTech with his `Visualization of the |> Distribution of Atypical Incisor Formation in Lower |> Mammals'. Rendered with the exciting XIPAR multi- |> dimenionsal shader, his creation uses a daring palette of |> hot pinks and blues on a black background. Way to go, Gizmo! Oh, we already do this -- look at some of the papers from the IEEE Visualization '90. At another conference, a computer graphics person made the distinction between useful graphics and management graphics, and the amount of time needed to generate them. Management graphics might take an order of magnitude more time to make, and provide an order of magnitude less information. My big problem with the concept of visualization as a discipline is that it sounds surprisingly similar to the basic mistake made by the expert system shell folks. They would say things like, "We've done all the hard work for you. Now all you have to do is put in your own knowledge." It turns out that gathering and assessing the knowledge *is* the hard part -- the shell construction is straightforward computer programming. Knowledge acquisition, organization, and application are the tough jobs. The same is true of the visualization types: "We've done the hard part: here's a renderer, some data display tools, etc. Now go and do good science with your data." I'm not sure they realize the hard part is just beginning, and that the tools they've given the scientists don't help a lot. Visualization can help reduce the information overload, but it doesn't help with the insight or analysis to make the conceptual leap from the video to understanding the real world. Jock Mackinlay had a really cool paper in Transactions on Graphics detailing his expert system to automatically construct graphs from data, graphs that would automatically display the correct variables in a pleasing and informative way. Too bad nobody has any programs to do that sort of thing on the market. Visualization people will only be useful when they understand that they are actually one of the least important parts of the whole process. Critical, yes, but not the part that actually contributes to the scientific world or towards a solution of an engineering problem. -- =============================================================================== Ken Meltsner | meltsner@crd.ge.com (518) 387-6391 GE Research and Development Center | Fax: (518) 387-7495 P.O. Box 8, Room K1/MB207 | Nothing I say should be attributed Schenectady, NY 12301 | to my employer, and probably vice-versa =================Dep't of Materials Science, ACME Looniversity=================
ciemo@bananapc.wpd.sgi.com (Dave Ciemiewicz) (04/05/91)
In article <1151@durer.cme.nist.gov>, bagwill@swe.ncsl.nist.gov (Bob Bagwill) writes: |> On the other hand, scientists may ignore useful data because it doesn't make |> a pretty picture. Speaking from zero knowledge, I would guess that |> grant committees and other investors like pretty pictures. Scene from |> NSF committee of the future :-) |> |> Bob Bagwill Speaking from, an albeit limited, number experiences in this area, do not underestimate the power of a pretty picture. Sometimes you may even want to target color choices in a visualization based on the target audience. If it's to a colleague who will question your choices, you may want to choose colors that are meaningful. If it is a sales pitch to your management, investors, grant committees, et cetera, bold colors and richly saturated hues seem to work quite well. For instance, co-workers who came from HP said they used to use what they called the "Circus" color scheme for graphical UIs when they gave executive demos. Why, because management wanted bold colors and thought that was what people wanted to use day-in and day-out. Management likes to make suggestions like "you aren't using enough color". "It isn't graphical enough." If the data rotates in 3D and people can play with it, all the more impressive. Avoid subtlety when pitching a visualization. The more easily anyone can grasp the concept of what you are doing via a visualization, the more easily it will sell. One reason you want to use a visualization is that it allows the audience to "participate" in the discovery you've made. They can "look" at your data and feel like they are corroborating your findings. Basically visualization is not just a analytical tool but it is also a marketing tool for getting funding for your project and a visual aid for communicating the results to your audience. Lately I feel that everything is just marketing and that if you have an ineffective sales pitch, you can have the best idea in the world and it won't be received if it's not packaged properly. -- __ * __ _ __ ___ / \ / / / / \/ \/ \ "Me brain hurts!" / / \/ / /\ / / --- P.T. Gumby \___/\__/\_/ /_/ / \__/ *
andyr@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Andy Rose) (04/05/91)
In article <18226@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> meltsner@crd.ge.com writes: > >Visualization can help reduce the information >overload, but it doesn't help with the insight or analysis to make the >conceptual leap from the video to understanding the real world. I thought the whole purpose of visualization was to help with the insights or analysis to make the conceptual leap. Is visualization just for reducing the information overload? What's the difference? >Visualization people will only be useful when they understand that >they are actually one of the least important parts of the whole >process. Critical, yes, but not the part that actually contributes to >the scientific world or towards a solution of an engineering problem. People will only be useful when they understand that they are actually one of the least important parts of the whole process. Critical, yes, oh yes, in this day and age, critical indeed. Important? The 'process' of science seems to place little importance on communicating results to the layman, relying on "Popular Science" and technical reporters to get the word out. Perhaps visualization can make inroads into increasing the amount of knowledge disseminated to the common people in the common(?) language(?) of pictures and moving pictures. >Ken Meltsner | meltsner@crd.ge.com (518) 387-6391 Andy Rose
tttron@escher.lerc.nasa.gov (William Krauss) (04/05/91)
In article <18226@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> meltsner@crd.ge.com writes: > [...stuff deleted...] >The same is true of the visualization types: I really can't say what "type" I am so I'll refrain from comment 8~) (Though I get the impression you're a "disgruntled visualization customer - perhaps you haven't heard of our money back guarantee!") >"We've done the hard >part: here's a renderer, some data display tools, etc. Now go and do >good science with your data." I'm not sure they realize the hard part >is just beginning, and that the tools they've given the scientists >don't help a lot. Visualization can help reduce the information >overload, but it doesn't help with the insight or analysis to make the >conceptual leap from the video to understanding the real world. I can give a person a hammer, but that does not a house build. I can also give him/her ALL the TOOLS, supplies, manuals, instructions, (ad infinitum) but it will never BUILD the house. I beg to differ on the "conceptual leap" which you claim is lacking. Visual feedback IS a conceptual BRIDGE - it may not be the best one, it may not be the ONLY one - but it IS a bridge nonetheless (I don't believe too many folks can deny this). Granted its use is the researcher's preference. You personally may not find them useful, but there are MANY who do. >...automatically construct graphs from >data, graphs that would automatically display the correct variables in >a pleasing and informative way. Too bad nobody has any programs to do >that sort of thing on the market. Your concept of "pleasing" may not necessarily be someone else's. ("De gustibus non disputandum est" - one cannot dispute taste). Ahh, one might claim that "scientific visualization" is not ART - that could be an interesting thread!! >Visualization people will only be useful when they understand that >they are actually one of the least important parts of the whole >process. Critical, yes, but not the part that actually contributes to >the scientific world or towards a solution of an engineering problem. I am an engineer by "trade" who happens to enjoy being a "liason/interpreter" between the "engineer types" and the "visualization types." Different people *SOLVE* problems in a variety of ways. In addition, people perceive (see, interpret, etc) in many ways. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that there will be a definitive "visualization tool" that will allow EVERY researcher complete control of his/her environment/results. If one thinks of "visualization" (whatever that nebulous word means) as a type of microscope its meaning becomes a bit more focussed (pun intended). Graphical feedback into one's simulation (or what have you) allows one NOT ONLY to "reduce the information overload" BUT to place it into a more "digestible," understandable form. That form (and more importantly its USEFULLNESS), however, is ultimately up to the investigator. That places the importance and responsibility on the engineer/scientist's shoulders - exactly where it should be. The "visualization types" provide some of the tools (some of us "engineer types" happen to be "visualization types" too!!) and the scientist uses/abuses the tool to meet his/her own requirements (or develops his/her own). I guess you could say that "visualization types" are "Computer Optometrists" - helping folks see what THEY'RE doing (not to SEE for them) and suppyling "corrective lenses" for their "visual acuity." Another thing to remember is that some of us "visualization types" also work DIRECTLY in conjunction with the investigator - essentially becoming an EXTENSION of his/her perspective by developing these tools (whatever they may be). There's much less of an "us versus them" attitude than one might think. What about developing VALID models? Is that not an INTEGRAL portion of the design/analysis process? So then "visualization types" can be an INTEGRAL part of the "picture" 8`). And now our regularly scheduled program... -- >>>> William D. Krauss NASA Lewis Research Center <<<< >>>> Graphics Visualization Lab Cleveland, OH 44135 USA <<<< >>>> tttron@escher.lerc.nasa.gov(128.156.1.94) (216) 433-8720 <<<<
meltsner@crd.ge.com (Kenneth J Meltsner) (04/05/91)
|>From: tttron@escher.lerc.nasa.gov (William Krauss) [stuff deleted] |> |>I really can't say what "type" I am so I'll refrain from comment 8~) |>(Though I get the impression you're a "disgruntled visualization customer - |>perhaps you haven't heard of our money back guarantee!") I'm actually a disgruntled expert systems customer, but I've been seeing behavior in the visualization types similar to that exhibited by the expert systems types in their heyday. I was pretty dismayed, for example, by the Visualization '90 Proceedings and the number of content-free papers. It's hard to quantify, but I think you're definitely going need to shake out some of the under-sized apples (if not actually rotten) before the field can be appraised properly. I understand this is all pretty new, but I'm tired of the hype. And I'd certainly be cautious about doing my graduate studies in an ill-defined discipline like "visualization." Or "knowledge engineering," for that matter. |>>"We've done the hard |>>part: here's a renderer, some data display tools, etc. Now go and do |>>good science with your data." I'm not sure they realize the hard part |>>is just beginning, and that the tools they've given the scientists |>>don't help a lot. Visualization can help reduce the information |>>overload, but it doesn't help with the insight or analysis to make the |>>conceptual leap from the video to understanding the real world. |> |>I can give a person a hammer, but that does not a house build. I can |>also give him/her ALL the TOOLS, supplies, manuals, instructions, |>(ad infinitum) but it will never BUILD the house. I beg to differ on the |>"conceptual leap" which you claim is lacking. Visual feedback IS a |>conceptual BRIDGE - it may not be the best one, it may not be the ONLY |>one - but it IS a bridge nonetheless (I don't believe too many folks |>can deny this). Granted its use is the researcher's preference. You |>personally may not find them useful, but there are |>MANY who do. The visualization image or movie is used to make the subject clear enough that the *user* can make the conceptual leap. Without that, he or she is simply putting familiar results in prettier packages. |> |>>...automatically construct graphs from |>>data, graphs that would automatically display the correct variables in |>>a pleasing and informative way. Too bad nobody has any programs to do |>>that sort of thing on the market. |> |>Your concept of "pleasing" may not necessarily be someone else's. ("De gustibus |>non disputandum est" - one cannot dispute taste). Ahh, one might claim that |>"scientific visualization" is not ART - that could be an interesting thread!! Fine. Let the user specify some preferences and allow the program to work within those. I'm flexible (but the software I use rarely is...). |>>Visualization people will only be useful when they understand that |>>they are actually one of the least important parts of the whole |>>process. Critical, yes, but not the part that actually contributes to |>>the scientific world or towards a solution of an engineering problem. |> |>I am an engineer by "trade" who happens to enjoy being a "liason/interpreter" |>between the "engineer types" and the "visualization types." Different people |>*SOLVE* problems in a variety of ways. In addition, people perceive (see, |>interpret, etc) in many ways. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that |>there will be a definitive "visualization tool" that will allow EVERY |>researcher complete control of his/her environment/results. If one thinks of |>"visualization" (whatever that nebulous word means) as a type of |>microscope its meaning becomes a bit more focussed (pun intended). Graphical |>feedback into one's simulation (or what have you) allows one NOT ONLY to |>"reduce the information overload" BUT to place it into a more "digestible," |>understandable form. That form (and more importantly its USEFULLNESS), |>however, is ultimately up to the investigator. That places the importance |>and responsibility on the engineer/scientist's shoulders - exactly where |>it should be. The "visualization types" provide some of the tools (some of |>us "engineer types" happen to be "visualization types" too!!) and the |>scientist uses/abuses the tool to meet his/her own requirements (or develops |>his/her own). |> I don't want a tool that allows me complete control over everything. I'd like a magic tool that'd extract the interesting bits and show them to me, that would show me where models diverge from experiment, or where experimental results appear to be inconsistent. |>I guess you could say that "visualization types" are "Computer Optometrists" |>- helping folks see what THEY'RE doing (not to SEE for them) and suppyling |>"corrective lenses" for their "visual acuity." |> |>Another thing to remember is that some of us "visualization types" also |>work DIRECTLY in conjunction with the investigator - essentially becoming |>an EXTENSION of his/her perspective by developing these tools (whatever they |>may be). There's much less of an "us versus them" attitude than one might |>think. What about developing VALID models? Is that not an INTEGRAL portion |>of the design/analysis process? So then "visualization types" can be an |>INTEGRAL part of the "picture" 8`). I'm sure visualization personnel are valuable parts of their teams, but I'd simply like software that didn't require a specialized staff person's time to run and feed. I can buy good statistics programs, and I can plan out a statistical strategy with a statistician if I'm doing something out of the ordinary, and then use the programs. I don't need another middleman to run the program. Why can't visualization be the same sort of thing? What value does a specially-trained visualization expert contribute to the process? I'm not saying "visualizers" don't contribute any value, but I need this sort of question answered before I'd plan a project to use one. By the way, I have the same questions about "knowledge engineers" and their value in scientific and engineering activities. I think visualization as a tool may have a lot to offer. I can't argue with methods that show me the results from my simulations more clearly, or bring out details I'd miss otherwise. But is this a science or an engineering discipline? Is this something we should have doctoral programs for, or should we encourage properly trained computer graphics people to specialize in this "bridging" function? I (honestly) don't claim to have an answer to these questions. =============================================================================== Ken Meltsner | meltsner@crd.ge.com (518) 387-6391 GE Research and Development Center | Fax: (518) 387-7495 P.O. Box 8, Room K1/MB207 | Nothing I say should be attributed Schenectady, NY 12301 | to my employer, and probably vice-versa =================Dep't of Materials Science, ACME Looniversity=================
drw900@anusf.anu.edu.au ("Drew R Whitehouse") (04/05/91)
In article <1991Apr4.174721.7759@dragon.wpd.sgi.com>, ciemo@bananapc.wpd.sgi.com (Dave Ciemiewicz) writes: |> In article <1151@durer.cme.nist.gov>, bagwill@swe.ncsl.nist.gov (Bob Bagwill) writes: |> |> On the other hand, scientists may ignore useful data because it doesn't make |> |> a pretty picture. Speaking from zero knowledge, I would guess that |> |> grant committees and other investors like pretty pictures. Scene from |> |> NSF committee of the future :-) |> |> |> |> Bob Bagwill |> |> Basically visualization is not just a analytical tool but it is also a |> marketing tool for getting funding for your project and a visual aid for |> communicating the results to your audience. |> |> Lately I feel that everything is just marketing and that if you have an |> ineffective sales pitch, you can have the best idea in the world and it |> won't be received if it's not packaged properly. |> Maybe you're getting a bit cynical ? If "everything is marketing" turned out to be true I think a lot of scientists would pack it in and go home. Would Einstein have had the time and energy to have thought out general relativity if he had to justify his time spent staring at the ceiling with 3d raytraced animations ? The flipside of your argment is "you can have the dumbest idea in the world and it will be received properly with proper packaging". I think we're beginning to see this more and more, and maybe it's not a good thing to encourage. I see visualizers as people who are making advanced graphics techniques easier and easier to use, for researchers who've got more important things to wrap there minds around. Drew -- /*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ /* Drew Whitehouse, E-mail: drw900@anusf.anu.edu.au */ /* Visualization Group, (NOTE: recent change, no more csc2 ) */ /* Australian National University, Phone : (06) 2495985 */ /* Supercomputer Facility. Fax : (06) 2473425 */ /* GPO Box 4, Canberra ACT Australia 2601. */ /*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
andyr@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Andy Rose) (04/05/91)
Ken Meltsner writes: > >I'm sure visualization personnel are valuable parts of their teams, >but I'd simply like software that didn't require a specialized staff >person's time to run and feed. I can buy good statistics programs, >and I can plan out a statistical strategy with a statistician if I'm >doing something out of the ordinary, and then use the programs. I >don't need another middleman to run the program. Why can't >visualization be the same sort of thing? What value does a >specially-trained visualization expert contribute to the process? I'm >not saying "visualizers" don't contribute any value, but I need this >sort of question answered before I'd plan a project to use one. Perhaps the essence of my origianl question is expressed here in the analogy between a statistician and a visualizer. Certainly a good statistician is highly trained, has developed his own jargon, has a PhD and should be consulted as a guru. Could there be such a role for a visualizer? Is visualization as straightforward as Ken seems to suggest ("software that didn't require a specialized staff...")? I suggest that there are as many ways to visualize data as there are brains wanting to. I also suggest that some methods of vis are more efficacious than others (i.e. stero glasses for amorphous blobs). But perhaps this is all common sense, just as it seems piecing together a readable paragraph is common sense. I think that if you want to talk to the common man you must speak his language and this may be where a visualizer's role is played out. Visualization is a watershed for the understanding of processes which define explanation through words. As in the past, scientists don't have the time or inclination to "reduce" their theories so they are grasped readily. It has yet to be seen whether headway will be made into this problem. >I think visualization as a tool may have a lot to offer. I can't >argue with methods that show me the results from my simulations more >clearly, or bring out details I'd miss otherwise. But is this a >science or an engineering discipline? Is this something we should >have doctoral programs for, or should we encourage properly trained >computer graphics people to specialize in this "bridging" function? I >(honestly) don't claim to have an answer to these questions. >=============================================================================== >Ken Meltsner | meltsner@crd.ge.com (518) 387-6391 I don't think visualization is a science or engineering discipline, but that a solid background in science is necessary to facilitate the communication. Knowing computer science, to run the machines, would be helpful as would knowing computer graphic techniques. Knowing statistical methods for revealing structure in data would help. Perception psych(?) or perhaps such 'soft science' is not acceptable to the hard sciences as an area even worth studying. There are other areas, like art history and graphic design, which scientists sometimes do not appreciate. I think some communications theory is also helpful. My experience as a staffperson in Dept. Visualization at Cornell Theory Center was there are many ways to represent data and that some were better than others and that I knew which because of experience. Perhaps some gentle reader who has visualized projects from differing sciences could chime in. -Andy Rose andyr@ssl.berkeley.edu "What we're really trying to get at is a way to teach 6 years of engineering to a student in 4 or 2 years, allowing time for the student to become aware of his field and to see the forest for the trees." Some thoughtful dean. "I say ram it down their optic nerves." -radical visualizer
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (04/05/91)
Some one wrote: |>On the one hand, the synthetic effort necessary to pre-visualize the data |>might lead to new insights. ^^^^^ Science cannot always rely on serendipitous discovery of results. If you need examples, let me know. I know a billion $$ worth. |>On the other hand, scientists may ignore useful data because it doesn't make |>a pretty picture. Speaking from zero knowledge, I would guess that |>grant committees and other investors like pretty pictures. The situation is not simple. 1) Some fields of science train their students to maintain a healthly skepticism. This is because early science derived from alchemy which also yielded the entertainment form of magic: "The hand is quicker than the eye." TV, computer videos, etc. don't help this. 2) Grant committees having scientists are frequently cautious about presentations which are too showy. It makes things harder (sometimes) when you are asking for a lot of money [it can also make certain presentations easier: depends on the field, the project, and the granting organization]. These comments to appear in print shortly. In article <1991Apr4.190844.19803@agate.berkeley.edu> andyr@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Andy Rose) writes: >In article <18226@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> meltsner@crd.ge.com writes: Ken>Visualization can help reduce the information Ken>overload, but it doesn't help with the insight or analysis to make the Ken>conceptual leap from the video to understanding the real world. andy>I thought the whole purpose of visualization was to help with the andy>insights or analysis to make the conceptual leap. Is visualization andy>just for reducing the information overload? What's the difference? Insight is a human thing. The book review I just posted talks about maps as images MUST oversimplify. The real world frequently has too much information, too much distractions (me and the net), etc. Not it is not strictly for reducing overload. The difference is to look at other sciences which have used imaging for a long time. My best examples are cartography, photogrammetry, astronomy, x-ray crystallography, biology, and particle physics. These fields are mathematical (quantitative), visual (qualitative), use stereo, etc. Ken>Visualization people will only be useful when they understand that Ken>they are actually one of the least important parts of the whole Ken>process. Critical, yes, but not the part that actually contributes to Ken>the scientific world or towards a solution of an engineering problem. Take heed of this. It is very true. Ken>My big problem with the concept of visualization as a discipline is Ken>that it sounds surprisingly similar to the basic mistake made by the Ken>expert system shell folks. I am not the only person who has made this observation, as I watch Intell*s and Tek* and certain other AI companies go down various tubes. andy>The 'process' of science seems to place little importance on communicating andy>results to the layman, You MUST make a certain distinction between the graphics used for DISCOVERY versus the graphics used for EDUCATION, MANAGEMENT and NEWS. Support of that FUNDAMENTAL DISCOVERY is EVERYTHING. If you don't discover it: it's just common knowledge. DISCOVERY is a change from an IGNORANT state to a more knowledgeable state. A scientist is a person who must make a difference in the way that others (including his colleagues) cannot. [Galileo, telescope] He is a spark. Sure, he needs funding from his management, a public, etc. But if he does not make that discovery, then the rest is moot. Right? [I know you can see this, just reminding you.] In my discussion with Charles Harris, publisher of Pixel, I have tried to give him examples, my readings, books, journals, even popular magazines, images (mono and stereo) to place on his wall. Here is what I have given him: Peale, et al's article in Science predicting Io vulcanism [published before the Voyager flyby by days] I read/interpreted the mathematics for him. Two Time magazine covers: Warm superconductors, Cold Fusion [One real good science, the other.....] [New knowledge, new ignorance?] A box of old Science A book on stereo aerial photography with viewer Three books by Edgerton on strobe photograph: (his science text book, one coffee table book): strobe, high speed. Two books on Muybridge [one including his biography] A book on space geomorphology. I take some Voyager imagery I forgot tomorrow. ken>made the distinction between useful graphics and management graphics, ken>and the amount of time needed to generate them. Management graphics ken>might take an order of magnitude more time to make, and provide an ken>order of magnitude less information. A good example of useful discovery imagery is x-ray crystallography images. They are totally unintelligable by an untrained eye, but they have a beautiful symmetry (smile 8^). Yet, understanding the geometry and other physical and mathematical properties tell us of a world previously unimaginable. This is how I came up with a question about Watson and Crick and the importance of hard, physical, 3-D models vs. straight imagery. Similar arguments can be made of phase space and frequency space diagrams. Don't get me wrong, images CAN, but will NOT always, clarify. --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
will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) (04/05/91)
In article <18252@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, meltsner@crd.ge.com (Kenneth J Meltsner) writes: >I'm actually a disgruntled expert systems customer, but I've been >seeing behavior in the visualization types similar to that exhibited >by the expert systems types in their heyday. I was pretty dismayed, >for example, by the Visualization '90 Proceedings and the number of >content-free papers. It's hard to quantify, but I think you're >definitely going need to shake out some of the under-sized apples (if >not actually rotten) before the field can be appraised properly. I >understand this is all pretty new, but I'm tired of the hype. And I'd >certainly be cautious about doing my graduate studies in an >ill-defined discipline like "visualization." Or "knowledge >engineering," for that matter. > This was probably one of the sadest effects of the Marketing of the AI field. I really hope it does'nt do diservice to the Visualization field. But, if I remember correctly, one of the major reasons for such behavior (at least on the AI side) was that the government would not fund boring technology. Please correct me if I am wrong. >Fine. Let the user specify some preferences and allow the program to >work within those. I'm flexible (but the software I use rarely is...). > This is probably because, it takes a long long time to refine the flexability into software. Much longer than most Corporate managers will allow. One of my main problems with RiGS-e was not the making of the software or even learning the X window system. I found the most difficult part came from the various types of people that are going to use the system. No 2 people interact with the computer in the same way (at least not with the same level of understanding). William Dee Rieken Researcher, Computer Visualization Faculty of Science and Technology Ryukoku University Seta, Otsu 520-21, Japan Tel: 0775-43-7418(direct) Fax: 0775-43-7749 will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp
will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) (04/05/91)
In article <1991Apr5.092418@anusf.anu.edu.au>, drw900@anusf.anu.edu.au ("Drew R Whitehouse") writes: > The flipside of your argment is "you can have the dumbest idea >in the world and it will be received properly with proper packaging". > yea, IBM came to mind, but lets be fair, NEC is worse and it uses stolen IBM technology (I think they license it now). >I think we're beginning to see this more and more, and maybe it's not >a good thing to encourage. I see visualizers as people who are making >advanced graphics techniques easier and easier to use, for researchers >who've got more important things to wrap there minds around. > I have been researching visulization techniques for 4 years now and my main goal 4 years ago, was to bring visualization to the scientist and engineer, at thier level of understanding so that they may share usefull and meaning full information between each other visually. Another reason was that at that time, several scientist were being scrutinized for using false data, with visual tools I had hoped that such things would not be possible and that such tools would allow for a faster growth in research and provide a means to store the information for future references. My goals remain stable to this day. But, let me comment here, I have been working with no help from other researchers, everything I have done to this day is based upon old data. By old, I mean, I usually get info, 2-6 months after publication. So, I am interested in communication with others, so that I may refine my own ideas. This group, was a great idea, and I am glad that someone had thought of it. Thank you. William Dee Rieken Researcher, Computer Visualization Faculty of Science and Technology Ryukoku University Seta, Otsu 520-21, Japan Tel: 0775-43-7418(direct) Fax: 0775-43-7749 will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (04/05/91)
In article <1991Apr4.232859.14624@agate.berkeley.edu> andyr@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Andy Rose) writes: >Perhaps the essence of my origianl question is expressed here in the >analogy between a statistician and a visualizer. Yes, but again, most scientists don't hire stat people for their work. I did kind of like the optometist analogy. I'll think about it more. Note: I only recently got glasses for the first time in my life. To quote mine which taking tests: "Confused? You are supposed to be. Helps refine the measurement...." >I suggest that there are as many ways to visualize data as there are >brains wanting to. I also suggest that some methods of vis are more >efficacious than others (i.e. stero glasses for amorphous blobs). >But perhaps this is all common sense, just as it seems piecing together >a readable paragraph is common sense. I am open to your first statement, especially since we have blind scientists here, but we have dataset here of fluid flow with such blobs and no one can understand what's going on. Turbulence is a major topic of study and non-trivial. Don't trust common sense. Common sense isn't so common. >I think that if you want to talk to the common man you must speak his >language Again if the scientist doesn't understand, then the common man won't either. >Perception psych(?) or perhaps such 'soft science' is not acceptable >to the hard sciences as an area even worth studying. There are other >areas, like art history and graphic design, which scientists sometimes >do not appreciate. I think some communications theory is also helpful. I nearly married into a family of artists (4 generations). Nothing wrong with art for art's sake, BUT scientists would tend to like to have some real consistency when trying to solve problems (applications). James Burke pointed that art is largely "one man's interpretations made third hand,... and they tell you more about the man observing than the thing observed." I'll get the exact quote if you need it. Art and science are similar in many ways, but if you have a science problem and get two artists with two different suggestions to solve a rendering problem, you don't have time to sort things out. Cognitive science people tend to be a bit more consistent, but we get battles here. If you want to read part of the argument read Edward Feigenbaum's Fifth Generation Computers (about 1982) wherein Feigenbaum notes physicists are the "Polo players of science." >My experience as a staffperson in Dept. Visualization at Cornell Theory >Center was there are many ways to represent data and that some were >better than others and that I knew which because of experience. > >Perhaps some gentle reader who has visualized projects from differing >sciences could chime in. True many ways to represent data. I've looked at Kiviat Diagrams, Chernoff Faces, 2 and 3-D surfaces, objects, volumes, and lots of stereo. You want gentle? Personal experience is like introspection: limited value. But mathematical notation is without question the most powerful. "Science is not pretty...." -- from a comedy routine --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
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (04/06/91)
In article <218@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) writes: >This was probably one of the sadest effects of the Marketing of the >AI field. I really hope it does'nt do diservice to the Visualization >field. But, if I remember correctly, one of the major reasons for >such behavior (at least on the AI side) was that the government would >not fund boring technology. Please correct me if I am wrong. Do you mean the US government or the Japanese (jp) government? I sought funding in the early 1980s for computer science research for the above two fields and more (with many trips between coasts). Part of the problem lies with the entrenched funding structures of the various basic sciences fields. True: few people want to fund basic AI research. DARPA is one US agency which has (with some what remote ties to actual military field use). ARPA also once funded the original work in computer graphics. But why should any government be responsible for funding research? Why not industry, etc.? [Playing devil's adovcate here.] The basic infrastructure of science in the US tends to fund large projects (Big Science). Examples include: particle accelerators, telescopes, space missions, and recently supercomputers and the idea we might completely map a human gene. Of late these projects are multi-$1B. One thrust says "We must do science projects which compete with these!" ICOT is one example of this with FGCS (which never really took on computer graphics). [Fifth Gen. Comp. Syst.] But another thrust says, "We must stay small." The real problem comes with interdisciplinary efforts like computers which falls between the traditional cracks of science like physics and biology. A lack of critical mass to fund the research in the types of tools used by the "fundamental sciences" causes a "Naw, you fund this." "No after you." round robin. This is why I had a fellow on my panel (Greg Rau) who would have a title no shorter than "Stable Isotope Bio geo chemist." AI and visualization and other fields are going to be like this as well. --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 On a long drive between Aspen and Denver on I70: ..."Are you a chemist?" "No, not really." "Are you a biologist?" "No, not really.".... "Are you are geologist?" "No not really, my PhD is really in forestry, but I know nothing about forestry." .... (30 minutes on a rainy I70) passes. "Yes I can see you ARE a Stable Isotope BioGeochemist..."
will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) (04/06/91)
In article <1991Apr5.212903.8978@nas.nasa.gov>, eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes: >Do you mean the US government or the Japanese (jp) government? The U.S. government. My argument was related to a story I read about Dr. E. A. Feigenbaum. The story was very negative about him, stating that he had made A.I. appear to be much more than everyone was able to accomplish, by creating super-hype for congress and other government officials, in order to finance A.I. research. The story went on to state that with all of his hype he eventually led gov. officials to believe that they were missled and so A.I. effectivly died. >The basic infrastructure of science in the US tends to fund large projects >(Big Science). Examples include: particle accelerators, telescopes, >space missions, and recently supercomputers and the idea we might completely >map a human gene. Of late these projects are multi-$1B. > Particle accel. and supercomputers have military applications so it is resonable to expect funding. As far as space missions and telescopes (I will assume you mean Hubble). I don't think the government thinks any more of outer space as they do the empty space between thier ears. Word has it that in the next budget congress will cut 1 Billon dollars from NASA. And congress had almost killed Hubble many times in the past. Mapping a human gene, well, yes, the U.S. is involved, but I ask some proffesors here and they say most of this is being done outside the U.S. So, were is this dream of Big Science? The U.S. economy can no longer fund Science or Basic Research, that is why our President goes to Japan to beg for money. So you can keep your Job. William Dee Rieken Researcher, Computer Visualization Faculty of Science and Technology Ryukoku University Seta, Otsu 520-21, Japan Tel: 0775-43-7418(direct) Fax: 0775-43-7749 will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp The Japan Times: The Japanese own over 80 Billion dollars of U.S. land. (buildings not incl.)
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (04/09/91)
In article <221@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) writes: >I wrote: >Dr. E. A. Feigenbaum..... We agree on something. 8^) > > Particle accel. and supercomputers have military applications so it is >resonable to expect funding. As far as space missions and telescopes (I will >assume you mean Hubble) ALL COMPUTERS WERE DERIVED FROM military funding..... Most PAs not. Hubble? No, there are several dozen telescope projects in this country. Airborne, the Keck (bulding dedicated by a friend from Caltech), etc. >almost killed Hubble many times in the past. Mapping a human gene, well, yes, >the U.S. is involved, but I ask some proffesors here and they say most of this >is being done outside the U.S. So, were is this dream of Big Science? The >U.S. economy can no longer fund Science or Basic Research, that is why our >President goes to Japan to beg for money. So you can keep your Job. This is an interesting non-visualization oriented article. If you want to study, get a copy of The Politics of Pure Science by Greenberg. Back the benchmarking and visualization. Oh, one last thing, not related to this specific article. I have a copy of a SIAM News cartoon, I plan to see if Pixel will reproduce it. This assumes people know what SIAM is (an applied math society). The cartoon is entitled "The Mind Adventures of Just Plain Tim" which takes a swipe at imagery and pictures. Frame 2 "But he was angered by a hostile educational system..." shows Tim reading a book "A Books of Words" He's saying, "Words! No pictures or nothing! Yuck-o here's a picture. Why ain't it movin?" Frame 3 "That continuted even through college." Tim studying over a book He comment includes "What's a physic anyway?" An undercurrent against visualization exists, and it is not lacking some justification. Developers of visualization software must get their act together. --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
meo@lhdsy1.chevron.com (Mike E. Osborne) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr4.174721.7759@dragon.wpd.sgi.com> ciemo@bananapc.wpd.sgi.com (Dave Ciemiewicz) writes: >In article <1151@durer.cme.nist.gov>, bagwill@swe.ncsl.nist.gov (Bob Bagwill) writes: >|> On the other hand, scientists may ignore useful data because it doesn't make >|> a pretty picture. Speaking from zero knowledge, I would guess that >|> grant committees and other investors like pretty pictures. Scene from >|> NSF committee of the future :-) > >Speaking from, an albeit limited, number experiences in this area, do not >underestimate the power of a pretty picture. Sometimes you may even want to >target color choices in a visualization based on the target audience. If >it's to a colleague who will question your choices, you may want to choose >colors that are meaningful. If it is a sales pitch to your management, >investors, grant committees, et cetera, bold colors and richly saturated hues >seem to work quite well. > I have very much enjoyed the philosophy of science carried on here lately. I also find that those in management reviewing programs which have extensive visualization graphics seem more impressed with flashy colors and 3-D rotating, shaded surfaces. However the workers here seem to develop and use fairly complex graphics (often X-Y plots with many things plotted to show interrelationships, or maps with what appears to the novice as a confusing mess) which highlight the INFORMATION hidden in the data. Between these two extremes is the balance used to try and communicate what the expert visualizer has seen in the data. The science (and much of it is human factors) of visualization should focus on the last two uses of visualizing tools despite the fact that management usually approves the purchase of the hardware and software necessary to carry out these actions. Thanks again for very enjoyable reading. Mike Osborne meo@chevron.com