Xref: utzoo alt.hypertext:812 comp.cog-eng:1921 comp.graphics:17050 comp.multimedia:279 comp.software-eng:5249 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!bcm!convex!ewright From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) Newsgroups: alt.hypertext,comp.cog-eng,comp.graphics,comp.multimedia,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Images vs. Text Message-ID: <1991Apr04.204510.20425@convex.com> Date: 4 Apr 91 20:45:10 GMT References: <1991Apr2.180348.19733@smsc.sony.com> <1991Apr02.235121.17834@convex.com> Sender: news@convex.com (news access account) Distribution: na Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx. Lines: 36 Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.convex.com In article 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.