Xref: utzoo alt.hypertext:815 comp.cog-eng:1924 comp.graphics:17058 comp.multimedia:283 comp.software-eng:5256 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!mimsy!tove.cs.umd.edu!folta From: folta@tove.cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) Newsgroups: alt.hypertext,comp.cog-eng,comp.graphics,comp.multimedia,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Images vs. Text Message-ID: <32492@mimsy.umd.edu> Date: 5 Apr 91 05:12:29 GMT References: <1991Apr2.180348.19733@smsc.sony.com> <1991Apr02.235121.17834@convex.com> <1991Apr5.032157.10421@ecf.utoronto.ca> Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu Reply-To: folta@tove.cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) Followup-To: alt.hypertext Distribution: na Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 52 I think one area in which pictures win out over prose is in describing relationships. I know that I am always running to a markerboard to draw diagrams to explain things. Everything ranging from how a filesystem is laid out or how a network is laid out to where mammals fall in the biological hierarchy. Imagine electronic circuits described in words! As another example, I am now taking a class in modal logic. We are always drawing diagrams of possible worlds to help our understanding. Words alone certainly don't hack it. (Although ideographs alone wouldn't hack it either.) Of course, things are often labelled by words in diagrams; they are not totally pictorial. But the words are connected with lines, placed inside different shapes and beside icons, even written in different fonts, etc.. And often we compress out unnecessary information by using pictures only. For example, if I am describing a network, I might draw two or three nodes on the network that are unlabeled, but whose shape tells you that they are PCs. They are not labelled, because they only represent the fact that there are lots of PCs hooked up. On the other hand, major nodes are labelled with names. I believe that diagrams and pictures have this power to indicate presence and at the same time anonymity, which allows you to focus more clearly on the big picture. As for palettes of words beating palettes of icons, it depends on the task. I know that in a drawing program, I find icons to be much more descriptive of the drawing tools than words would be. For example, in FreeHand, what would CONNECTOR mean? If you look at its icon, you see that it creates a point that joins a curving line segment and a straight line segment. And what does LINE mean, as opposed to STRAIGHT LINE or FREEHAND LINE? Also, once you have an icon, adding information to it is often very easy. For example, in FreeHand the tools draw shapes, by default, from corner to corner. If you enable an option to draw from the center, the icons change so that there is an x in the center of the shape. Without taking any more room, you have more information, and I think it is more intuitive than words would be. As another example, wordprocessors often have little icons that show little lines that are left-justified (ragged right), right-justified (ragged left), centered, and fully justified. I think these are clearer than words by a long shot. In this example, icons also eliminate problems with terminology. For example, what I call right-justified (meaning ragged left), other people use to mean fully-justified, with an implicit [left- and] right-justified. Similarly in drawing programs where FREEHAND LINE might mean lines that aren't necessarily straight to me, but straight lines at any angle to you. -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)