Xref: utzoo alt.hypertext:808 comp.cog-eng:1918 comp.graphics:17039 comp.multimedia:275 comp.software-eng:5240
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!amdcad!jetsun!pyramid!athertn!hemlock!mcgregor
From: mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.hypertext,comp.cog-eng,comp.graphics,comp.multimedia,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Images vs. Text
Message-ID: <34951@athertn.Atherton.COM>
Date: 4 Apr 91 01:48:17 GMT
References: <1991Apr03.152708.147@convex.com> <10292@pitt.UUCP> <1991Apr3.031013.27762@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@athertn.Atherton.COM
Reply-To: mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor)
Followup-To: alt.hypertext
Distribution: na
Organization: Atherton Technology -- Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 49

In article <1991Apr03.152708.147@convex.com>, cash@convex.com (Peter
Cash) writes:

>Yes, and that's very nice. But what does the picture _mean_? "Rent your
>horse here"? "Horse crossing"? "Don't forget to feed the horse"? "The horse
>is a large quadruped ruminant mammal"? "Horses were not indigenous to North
>America, but were imported by the Conquistadores"?

I don't understand how this is *necessarily* different between an image vs.
a textual representation. This is not a matter of semantics, but of 
pragmatics.  An image of a horse and the textual string "horse"  have
precisely the same semantics (*mean* the same thing), but the question of
how the image or text is intended to be used is dependent upon the speaker's
intent, the context of the conversation, and other situational aspects
most often analyzed using "speech act" linguistic theory. Peter's
apology to Wittgenstein belies an awareness of this point. So, I can't see
how the representational form (picture vs. text) matters unless  Peter is
making a specific claim about the context in which the communication
takes place, and is saying that a textual representation would have a
conventional usage in that context, and that a pictorial representation
not being conventionally used that way would therefore be confusing.
If so, I do not agree that it is inherently more likely that text would be
more conventional.  A picture of a horse on a yellow diamond on a roadway is
more conventionally used to mean "horse crossing" than the text string
"horse" alone on a sign in that situation.  Whether a picture or a
text string is less ambiguous due to its conventional use in a  given
situation can go either way.

Or does Peter claim that people would conventionally attempt to give more
semantic meaning (i.e. give a whole sentance) with text than they bother
to in general with pictures.  I might agree, because picture production
is often more time consuming, and *semantically* equivalent text often
consumes less space.  I am curious to understand if others assume the former
interpretation or the latter. 

To get back to the original question about the superiority of
pictures over text, let me note that while I am sure Peter had an intent
to convey his position on this issue through his text, it wasnt'
perceived by me.
This does not at all mean that a graphic rendition would have improved
the matter (i.e. graphics is not superior for all situations), but demonstrates
that precise communication in both forms is troublesome even by skilled
practitioners.  Moreover, in evaluating the superiority or inferiority
of a particular form, it is important to consider the "pragmatics" aspects
of the situation such as existing conventions, the likelihood of skillful
creation (by the sender) and interpretation (by the recipients), as well
as the likely costs of incomplete or incorrect interpretation.

Scott McGregor