Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!csn!boulder!tigger!ralex
From: ralex@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Repenning Alexander)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Images vs. Text: Syntactic Issues
Message-ID: <1991Apr7.184708.22888@colorado.edu>
Date: 7 Apr 91 18:47:08 GMT
References: <10292@pitt.UUCP> <1991Apr6.163454.2454@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@colorado.edu (The Daily Planet)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 51
Nntp-Posting-Host: tigger.colorado.edu


Hi there,

It appears that there's a spectrum of application domains regarding
the applicability of picture-oriented representations. On one side
most people agree that having an iconic tool palette in MacDraw-like
programs is a good idea. On the other side I could hardly imagine
anybody trying to "translate" a telephone book into a bunch of icons.

So, there are definitely domains asking for a textual representations
simple because we're used to deal with them (right, this is specific to
our culture and therefore not generaly true). The question is can we
elaborate on this spectrum? Let me try to come up with a very
simplistic classification. I realize this is VERY naive and limited to
English and alike languages. The following list is sorted from simple
to hard:

nouns representing real objects: e.g., a horse
  simple because these nouns can be mapped to a (stereotypical)
  pictorial representation of the object

abstract nouns representing concepts: e.g., a loan
  cannot be mapped to a single "real" object

adjectives
  simple if property is intrinsically visual, e.g., color
  otherwise, .. hmmm..

verbs
  e.g., describe relationships between agent and patient. Without
  using some sort of animation it is very hard to convey the action
  associated with a pictorial representation. Agent and/or patient which
  typically have to be part of the pictorial representation can be
  missinterpreted as the noun(s) to be represented, e.g., how would you
  represent the action of sawing? Drawing a saw would most likely imply
  the noun saw.

I'd like to get your opionions. Does it make any sense at all? 

Maybe part of the problem with picture-oriented representations is
that, in contrast to English, picture-oriented representations do not
have any defined syntax. You can of course make up a syntax using
color, spatial features, explicit relationships (e.g., arcs), etc. 

Have there been attempts to capture a "natural" syntax for images used by people
(I'm not talking about the syntax imposed by individual visual programming
systems)? What does it mean on an abstract level when somebody draws a
bunch of circles, boxes and lines? What is the minimal set of
graphical primitives?

  Cheers, Alex "no signature" Repenning