- From: Edward Chalk <edwardchalk@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 09:19:14 +0300
- To: public-coga-community@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CALuG9w8Vs3R5_RayKvRb+eAnkd_Di7uPscca4jWjJuPfrbUg0A@mail.gmail.com>
Hi All, I was reading this <http://geoanalytics.net/and/papers/springer08a.pdf> paper on information visualisation, and I thought the following was a cogent point. 3.7 Conclusions To summarize, we feel there are many aspects of information visualization research that can find analogies in the concepts of information theory - *it is all about* *communication*. Perhaps finding such a formal structure on which to ground our efforts can potentially reduce the amount of ad hocness in the field. *The key is to* *define measures of information transfer, content, or loss at all stages of the pipeline as* *a means of assessing our progress* in the development of new visualization techniques and enhancement of existing ones. Namely, if we want an objective ruler to measure the clarity and effectiveness of information transfer, we can determine the degree to which the intended content was communicated effectively and the degree to which the intended message was lost. I.e., in what way was the communication clear and in what way was the communication unclear. I think the reason this could be useful is that it could enable finding complementary ways of communicating, e.g. if you have Communication Method 1 which communicates Aspect A well but loses Aspect B, and you have Communication Method 2 which communicates Aspect B well but loses Aspect A, then we could try to determine how to combine Method 1 and Method 2 to produce a generally acceptable means of communication. Cheers, Edward
Received on Friday, 29 April 2022 06:19:37 UTC