|
|
Monday, July 1, 2002
|
|
| |
9:01:40 PM 
|
|
Meme-husbandry of my comment on Joe Gregorio's essay has spawned two blogthreads: the word "linktoitiveness" and my attempt to visualize blogthreads. The latter reached Dave Winer via Jon Udell, which moves me to take this through one more iteration.
Now, I know this can't go on forever (especially with today's Winer-booster), and I know it will inevitably implode, but I think it could perhaps go farther, especially with help.
Ways to help.
1 if you become aware of (or create) a future descendant of these memes
a. let us know of them, and their parentage (i.e., the URL that came to the attention of the author of the new entry), via the Comments feature beneath this very weblog entry
2. if you assay an alternative way of representing this kind of thing (or a tool for keeping the game alive), let me know about it by Email as well. Even if it becomes impossible to track reproductive propagation of descendants (meme spread), it may be possible to track "speciation" (which might be a fair description of alternative representations).
P.S. I first proposed something along these lines on the c2.com wiki. Perhaps it will take wing this time. Here's that proposal (at least, here's what it looks like at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?VisualizeTheWiki today
The bizmap [at http://www.orgnet.com/DEMO/biznet.html] is substantially more interesting and relevant than the static gif indicates. Indeed, it is the most promising platform I've seen for a class of projects --DynamicVisualizationOfEvolvingSystems? -- that has fascinated me (increasingly!) for decades. I think the time (and the tools) have finally come, and it occurs to me that a wonderful data set to work on could come from this very wiki [WardCunningham, is there a historical record?].
Here's what I'd like to do-- visualize the growth and life, as well as the structure of the wiki. Picture this (check out the dynamic applet at http://www.orgnet.com/DEMO/biznet.html to get the picture):
''In the beginning, Ward created the first wiki pages. A few points in space interconnected, vibrating with potential.
New pages "bud" off other pages. The network re-equilibrates, nodes drift and align, form self-organized visual patterns that reflect their conceptual interconnections. (This should work for the same reasons google works.)
Over time...
- some pages attract links,
- some pages sprout links,
- some pages spawn nodes,
- some pages experience DeathOfThePage (of several varieties)
All of this can be seen, evolving over time, and with each incremental event the visualized network smoothly reorganizes itself to reflect what's going on.
- When pages are created they appear on the uppermost visual plane, closest to the Observer. Often they will overlay older nodes. (This is how I "organize" my desk; not such a bad system.)
- When pages undergo RecentChanges, they pop to the uppermost level as well, and they exert a gentle upward pull on older pages to which they point. (Thus, a new page that references a "classic" pulls that classic upward, toward renewed prominence. The effect is slight, but collectively it is significant. EvergreenClassics? turn out not have been Dead after all (see DeathOfThePage). They live (and rise toward the top) because they are constantly referred to. ''
And so on. This is EvolutionVisualized, and the implications go far beyond VisualizeTheWiki. But this could be a historic beachhead. I hereby solicit collaborators --> JonSchull
P.P.S. If you're interested in this enterprise, you may be interested in my Macroscope Manifesto
8:27:53 PM
|
|
Here's an excerpt from the article, followed by a little well-received axe-grinding and value-adding by me.
The article:
A visual vocabulary for describing information architecture and interaction design
version 1.1b (6 March 2002)
Jesse James Garrett
jjg@jjg.net
Table of Contents
- Summary
- Version history
- Initial considerations
- Conceptual underpinnings
- Simple elements: pages, files, and stacks thereof
- Creating relationships: connectors and arrows
- All at once: concurrent sets
- Breaking it up: continuation points
- Commonalities: areas and iterative areas
- Reusable components: flow areas and references
- Basic concepts for conditional elements
- Making choices: decision points
- Pathfinding: conditional connectors and arrows
- Multiple choice: conditional branches
- Choose one or more: conditional selectors
- One decision, many paths: clusters
- Some restrictions may apply: conditional areas
- Conclusion
- Downloadable shape libraries
Summary
Diagrams are an essential tool for communicating information architecture and interaction design in Web development teams. This document discusses the considerations in development of such diagrams, outlines a basic symbology for diagramming information architecture and interaction design concepts, and provides guidelines for the use of these elements.
....
Initial Considerations
Some other key requirements of a visual vocabulary for information architecture and interaction design include:
- Whiteboard-compatible: The vocabulary should be simple enough that diagrams can be sketched quickly by hand. The elements of the vocabulary should be distinct enough from each other that moderately sloppy drawing cannot compromise the clarity of the diagram.
- Tool-independent: The vocabulary should be designed so that specialized software tools are not required in order to construct diagrams. The vocabulary should not favor the use of any particular software tool, but should instead enable architects to work with the tools they are most comfortable using.
- Small and self-contained: Because the diagrams are used by a diverse range of audiences with differing levels of knowledge of (or even interest in) diagramming systems used in other areas of technical development, the vocabulary should not require such knowledge or interest. The total set of elements should be kept as small as possible, maintaining a strict one-to-one correlation between concepts and symbols, so that the vocabulary can be learned and applied quickly. The concepts expressed by a diagram may be arbitrarily complex; the means of their expression should not be.
[full article at A visual vocabulary for describing information ]
Axe grinding and value-adding by me...
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Schull [mailto:schull@softlock.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:35 PM
To: jjg@jjg.net
Subject: visual vocabulary; alternatives to simple boxes and lines
Have you examined the assumption that boxes and arrows are appropriate to the task? They come from an age of pens and rulers.
(That was the note to which Jesse replied...
There are certainly some interesting ideas here; I'm not sure how practical
such an approach would be for sketching out architectures, but I could
definitely see it having some benefit as a visualization tool..)
Now less radically, and consistent with your essay's "initial considerations" I'd suggest that elbow connectors unfortunately can define spurious spaces. Curved lines with bigger arrowheads can make a real difference, as in Image 3 derived from your sample diagram.
There are certainly some interesting ideas here; I'm not sure how practical
such an approach would be for sketching out architectures, but I could
definitely see it having some benefit as a visualization tool. --jjg
Secondly (and admitting that this violates your (whiteboard consideration) Image 4 shows that shading can do a good job of turning visually independent parts into the intended whole (as with your continuation points), and also help differentiatiate figure and ground.
Right again. I have actually been using shading (though not quite in this
way) in my own work, but as you point out, the whiteboard consideration
really rules out such techniques as part of the core system.
My expectation when I released the vocabulary was that people would adapt it
as they saw fit. The system is really intended just as a starting point;
these kinds of flourishes, as long as they enhance and do not detract from
the effectiveness of the diagrams as communication tools, are not at all
contrary to the spirit of the vocabulary--jjg.
I think the figure on the right is less busy and more illuminating because it demands less of the reader.
...
P.S. The shape library you included in the powerpoint file also works in Excel, whose arbitrary canvas-size and multiple tabbed windows can be very useful.
Good to know! I should have guessed as much.
Thanks for your thought-provoking comments. --jjg
4:58:15 PM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2004
Jon Schull.
Last update:
1/21/04; 9:25:55 AM.
|
|
|
