Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!bu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!eos!data.nas.nasa.gov!eagle!escher!tttron From: tttron@escher.lerc.nasa.gov (William Krauss) Newsgroups: comp.graphics.visualization Subject: Re: Out of the lab, into the classroom Keywords: reuse fabulous Message-ID: <1991Apr4.195401.22442@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> Date: 4 Apr 91 19:54:01 GMT References: <1991Apr2.202227.13796@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr3.172156.3960@nas.nasa.gov> <1991Apr3.193914.4569@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr3.215031.7763@nas.nasa.gov> <1151@durer.cme.nist.gov> <18226@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Sender: news@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov Reply-To: tttron@escher.UUCP (William Krauss) Organization: NASA/Lewis Research Center, Cleveland Lines: 78 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 <<<<