Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu!andyr
From: andyr@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Andy Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.visualization
Subject: Re: Out of the lab, into the classroom
Keywords: reuse fabulous
Message-ID: <1991Apr4.232859.14624@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 4 Apr 91 23:28:59 GMT
References: <18226@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <1991Apr4.195401.22442@eagle.lerc. <18252@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: Space Science Labs
Lines: 69

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