Diagrammatic Depictions of Processes
From Visualization Sp06
Lecture on Apr 6, 2006
Readings
- Interactive intent-based illustration: A Visual language for 3D worlds. Seligmann (html)
- Chapter 6:Narratives of Space and Time. In Envisioning Information. Tufte
Contents |
Bryan - Apr 06, 2006 09:53:33 am
As I saw each successive example of process diagrams (unpacking boxes, building home conveniences, opening a sardine tin) it occurred to me how many different, ad-hoc conventions of communication were being invented on the spot. There are a few universal symbols for danger or fragility, but certainly no standard way of communicating action. I wonder whether ISO or a similar body has attempted to create such a standard; it seems like it could certainly make a few basic tasks safer in cases where textual explanation isn't possible.
Mattkam - Apr 11, 2006 02:47:10 pm
Brian's point is very interesting because it reminds me about semiotics and the role of shared meanings in a culture, as well as the signs that represent these meanings. More importantly, meaning is constantly being created and appropriated, i.e. unlimited semiosis. So, this theoretical perspective suggests that while we can attempt to come up with standards for representing processes diagrammatically, we should expect these standards to continue to evolve. A related point is that while there might be some "basic tasks" that are universal to most cultures (and hence amendable to standardization processes and bodies like ISO), it would be necessary to have culture-specific diagrams for tasks that are relevant to specific cultures.
Gwyu - Apr 11, 2006 11:11:31 pm
I think that Matt's point can be illustrated by the misunderstandings (and laughs) you can get when looking at directions written in other languages. And I'm not talking about translations of the same directions. I think everyone and their mother has seen this site, and admittedly these aren't examples of good directions. However, I like the depiction of how to rid your cat of fleas. At least, that's what I think it's showing. Maybe diagrams like these are a lot less funny and more understandable if used in context.
Yi-Tao - Apr 13, 2006 09:51:39 am
I think the reason there's no universal symbols for actions is because actions change depending on the context. If you look at all the US road signs, you'll noticed that they mainly try to represent physical objects. Vague signs, like the caution and fragile signs, don't help if you can't figure out what to do. Rather than having diagrams, it'd be much easier if manufacturers just packaged a movie of someone setting up the product.
Sharena - Apr 13, 2006 01:41:14 pm
A movie does sound like an interesting idea, although it does seem that it might take longer to go through a watch a movie, especially if some one is experienced at following those intstructions. So determining the rate of the movie may be difficult, for some it will be too fast others too slow and pausing the movie in the middle of assembly may be hard.
I was also interested in the idea that was briefly touched on about automatically generating software tutorials with screen shots. That seems like something that is lacking in a lot of documentation but is very important and I was wondering if anyone knows of anything else that has been done similar to that. Automatically generating those seems like it would be very useful.
Raymond - Apr 13, 2006 01:40:44 pm
Yi-tao:
Watching some else perform the setup is defintely a lot better since we would just replicate their actions, but from a manufacturer's standpoint, I wonder how practical it is to ship a movie: it's certainly a lot more expensive than simply having paper instructions, and it would assume that the buyer has some sort of player (computer, tv/vcr/dvd player, etc.). Until it becomes more affordable, I think symbols+ words are still the best way to go. It would be nice to see some sort of standarized set of symbols (at least within an industry).
