I have trouble with your microscope analogy. I think of infoviz as the study of non-linear transformations from one dataspace to another, sorted in preference by the human sensory system. A microscope isn't information visualization, just like an aerial photo isn't information visualization, because both are linear. It's only through a reorganization (non-linear) of the data does the study become interesting. --SunirShah
-
- I'd say an aerial camera is the analog of the macroscope and the microscope, and you raise an interesting "academic" definitional question whether visualizations using those tools should be considered ìinformation visualizationî. InfoVis does indeed usually emphasize the mapping of non-spatial data to spatial dimensions, and so I'd say that the macroscope does qualify. (I'd also say that the microscope, the camera, and the "eye" qualify because what they do is less "linear" than it might seem. An ultrasound camera of the sort used for pre-natal photography is a good example is an interesting case to ponder, re the definitional question).--JonSchull
A macroscope would just sample the datastream at a lower rate, providing you with a smaller scale of information to parse. This is called zooming out in terms of microscopes. A sphere at armslength may become a globe at noselength, but this isn't information visualization. It's merely information acuity. (cf. VisualAcuity)
-
- sometimes zooming out makes a qualitative and not just quantitative difference. A picture of a forest is not just a picture of a lot of trees. It reveals a new structure. At that point it becomes a "macroscope", I'd say.--JonSchull
Nonetheless, all the data sets you describe in the manifesto aren't perceptual. They need to be visualized in some artificial way. Peer-to-peer distribution happens on the Internet, which isn't in any meaningful 3D perceptual space. First you have to render it in some visual space and then you have to reduce the detail to make the macroscope perceptible. Therefore, for the intents and purposes you list, this analogy's failings aren't important.
What is important I think is that the problem you face isn't a problem of the macroscope, but simply of some non-perceptible data space. That's merely the purpose of infoviz in the first place: to make the data perceptible. -- SunirShah
my impression was that MacroScope essay was about the goal of applying InformationVisualization to a certain domain; the name MacroScope i thought meant the ideal of a tool that used InformationVisualization techniques to visualize "the macro-structure of patterns of propagation, ramification, and repetition".
-
- I'm not sure that it matters, but I think SunirShah is confusing "3D perceptual space" and "objective 3D space". (Without the ultrasound the fetus is invisible (not in 3D perceptual space) but real (and located in an objective 3D space). Regardless, you're absolutely right that what interests me is the making-perceptible of otherwise-obscure phenomena..in particular, phenomena based on informational propagation, ramification, and repetition.--JonSchull
So I suppose this would be a subset of the field of InformationVisualization, in the same way that one might say that automated medical diagnosis is a subset of the field of ArtificialIntelligence. But the name MacroScope is still useful because it draws attention to the phenomena of "propagation, ramification, and repetition" which is something that other subfields of InformationVisualization may not be focusing on. -- BayleShanks
-
- I appreciate the support, but I'm not sure I agree (and I'm not wedded to the term ìmacroscopeî by the way). Phenomena of ìpropagation, ramification and repetitionî are ëparticularlyí interesting and important in our bio-techno-social world but I think the idea of a macroscope (or of InfoVis) is probably not restricted to those phenomena. (Interestingly, however, I canít think of an example...). Another essential element in what Iím groping for is the production not just of information-rich representations, but one that plugs into and exploits our natural perceptual abilities. We need to feel more ìat homeî in this universe.--JonSchullííí
2:45:53 PM 
|
|
