Visualization as a Public Good
From Visualization Sp06
There is only one reading. Please write your wiki comments about this article rather than about the lecture.
Brooks, Jr., F.P. 1996: "The Computer Scientist as Toolsmith II." Keynote/Newell Award address at SIGGRAPH '94, (Orlando, FL, July 1994). Communications of the ACM, March 1996, 39, 3: 61-68. Also Computer Graphics (Proc. of SIGGRAPH ’94,) 28, 4 (November 1994): 281-287. (Also available from the ACM Digital Library.)
Contents |
Noaa - Apr 29, 2006 01:32:52 pm
i never really thought about "computer science" being a misnomer but he makes a pretty good point. i like the idea that all the "sciences" that actually have science in the name aren't really that at all. i wonder if there are any schools that don't have a computer science department at all but only a computer engineering dept... anyhow i didn't really agree with what he said about natural sciences being valued or revered over engineering disciplines, but then again this speech was given 12 years ago and maybe things were different back then.
Sharena - May 01, 2006 03:18:40 pm
I liked the idea that "The scientist builds in order to study; the engineer studies in order to build" and that computer "science" does the building and then how he went on to talk about how collaboration with other disciplines is really needed to build something that will be used but that there are challenges with that as well.
I dont think he is saying that the "sciences" are necessarily valued more, just that by taking the name "science" we are enforcing that it should valued more, and that in cs, focusing on the "science" aspect takes away from the tool-building, user focused concept, which is what the computer is all about.
Yi-Tao - May 02, 2006 09:22:05 am
I'm surprised the article didn't mention economics (especially financial economics). There have been numerous tools developed to help analysts in that field.
Also, I'm confused about what the article is saying about SIGGRAPH. Based on its previous discussion of science, it seems the author is arguing that SIGGRAPH is moving towards "sensationalism" rather than grounding itself to the technical achievements. However, he's also framing the argument with subjective terms (e.g., true, noble, beauty) that obscure his point. I'm sure people would argue that the displays he finds troubling display those qualities. By presenting arbitrary conditions for judging SIGGRAPH entries, wouldn't it be easier to move towards "sensationalism"?
Jschonbrun - May 02, 2006 01:07:50 pm
Brooks published a very interesting article on interactive molecular visualization and modeling, also in 1994: [pdf]. I'm trying to understand now why this work didn't ultimately catch on. I think one issue is that you need a good interface, as well as an effective visualization. The time may be ripe to try this approach again, as gains in computatational power over the last 12+ years should make a lot more things feasible.
mattkam - May 02, 2006 02:20:49 pm
This reading and the online discussions made me think of two great books that should provide more food for thought. First, "The Sciences of the Artificial" by Herbert Simon, which argue that design aims to create artificial tools that address the designer's goals, and hence has both an analytic (i.e. science) and synthetic (i.e. engineering) dimension. Second, "Pasteur's Quadrant" by Donald Stokes, which argues that the basic-applied science distinction coined by Vannevar Bush is antiquated, and should be replaced by both considerations of use and fundamental knowledge.
Ashley - May 02, 2006 03:23:58 pm
This isn't about the reading, but it is about visualization as a public good. This recent New York Times article talks about looking at the numbers/statistics behind homicides, and it sounds like a good visualization might help identify trends, hotspots, etc. They also created an interactive map plotting homicides over the past 3 years by borough. It's a morbid article, but it sounds like an area of study ripe for more visualizations.
brien - May 04, 2006 12:57:45 pm
I think Frederick Brooks was right on when he said the IA factor in software/machines is the touchstone for "beautiful" software. Two inspiring, and different, examples (both in audio) I think about are the audio pad and hyperscore. Technically advanced media may lack content, and cruder media may pack legions of it. It's the difference between iambic pentameter and loose scribbles on a napkin -- in the former the human surge (for most) gets lost in a different metric of "beauty", namely form and structure and some kind of imposed coherence. So I agree that television fails not only for its content, but for the standards it sets, which seem detached. I would rather have it burnt on the edges, approaching raw and ineffable -- where people are -- whatever that means, I don't know, but I think it will be evident when it happens. So for sure, computers in such a view need to be conduits for something bigger, but they are also an essential part of the synergy.
Raymond - May 04, 2006 01:34:24 pm
I agree with Yi-Tao about his comments about SIGGRAPH; I'm not sure that his argument that it is simply an "electronic theater" is entirely correct. From the research papers and demos I have seen online and in classes, SIGGRAPH is more than just showing off pretty visuals and shiny things. Furthermore, like others have pointed out, this was written back in 94 and graphics have changed remarkably since then. Surely there are more than enough examples of "art" and "sheer beauty" that people produce "as a subcreation for each other's enrichment".
I also thought that his comments about what science is and IA > AI are intruiging.
