Xref: utzoo alt.hypertext:856 comp.graphics:17333 comp.multimedia:371 comp.software-eng:5385 comp.cog-eng:1956 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!amdcad!jetsun!pyramid!athertn!hemlock!mcgregor From: mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) Newsgroups: alt.hypertext,comp.graphics,comp.multimedia,comp.software-eng,comp.cog-eng Subject: Re: Images vs. Text Message-ID: <35027@athertn.Atherton.COM> Date: 17 Apr 91 17:55:51 GMT References: <1991Apr2.180348.19733@smsc.sony.com> <1991Apr02.235121.17834@convex.com>, Sender: news@athertn.Atherton.COM Reply-To: mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) Followup-To: alt.hypertext Organization: Atherton Technology -- Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 67 In article michael j pastor iii write: <34980@athertn.Atherton.COM> Distribution: na Organization: Class of '91, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 115 In-Reply-To: <34980@athertn.Atherton.COM> Scott McGregor Asks: > 1) Is, as is the authors claimed above, a pictorial programming language > "*equally* acssible to users from all linguistic backgrounds"? Or does > it skew the field the other way (i.e. against Indo-European language > users) >> I think it has to do more with cultural connotations of pictures rather >> than the language behind the culture. The authors (Cox & Pietrzykowski) claimed pictorial programming languages were superior, not because the pictures were well chosen, but because the pictures don't require the use of the concept of variables, which they claim is a difficult concept in languages with ideograms since it is not possible to compose "a meaningless string" to represent a variable. This is the question I would like to hear comments on. Was this posting meant to agree with them, or disagree with them? > 2) Is the concept of a variable really more difficult to users of ideographic > language users? How are other mathematical uses of variables taught? > Does mathematical literacy negate this alleged deficit? >> When you think of numbers (and +/-* type symbols) as one language, and >> letters another, this conflict is lessened. If we only had numbers to >> work with when trying to form a mathematical formula and couldn't use >> letters to represent variables, then we would have a problem. That is exactly the author's point--that iconic languages don't have letters, so variables can't be represented. The author's suggestion is that algebraic notation is a second language, but a second language more akin to Indo-European languages, and thus easier for Indo-Europeans to master. But is this true? Does the average asian-language speaker have more difficulty learning symbolic algebra? What evidence supports or refutes the authors' suggestions > 3) If the availability of meaningless strings is the key to use of variables, > why is it so important to choose meaningful names for variables instead of > nonsense or conventionally meaningless names such as "X"? > It isn't "so important" but it lessens one step in translation. If I > told you that a + b = c and I told you that red + blue = purple, which > one would you understand faster/easier/more meaningfully? (This same > equation could be used totally pictorally using squares of red and blue > and purple for example) C&P seem to claim that "a", "b" and "c" are better variables because they carry no predefined meanings. "Red", "Blue", "Purple" clearly carry some meaning from the color world. I would suspect that in a program about joining colored areas, choosing names such as "red-color-area" and "blue-color-area" or even simply "red" or "blue" would be prefered to the use of "a" and "b" as variables in such a program. But this is conflict with the statement C&P make that variables are more naturally composed from meaningless nonsense strings. In other words, don't we prefer variables to carry some meaning in practice, and not merely act as placeholders? Scott McGregor Atherton Technology mcgregor@atherton.com