Database Reference
In-Depth Information
tion Visualization as relating to engineering, cognition, design and science requires
the use of several theories each taking a different perspective.
As a starting point, we liken the understanding of visualization to the understand-
ing of ideas expressed in language. We draw on two perspectives in linguistic theory:
language as representation and language as process.
In considering the representation of language, lexical tokens are syntactically or-
dered to produce a semantic concept which the reader understands with reference to a
learned code. The concept is understood within a context and the reader responds
pragmatically.
We can take this approach a step further and consider the semiotic theory of Saus-
sure [1] wherein a sign is a relation between a perceptible token (signifier, referrer) and
a concept (signified, referent) - giving us another useful term: the referent of the token,
i.e. what it actually means in a given context. For example, a pair of numbers (the refer-
rer) may mean a geographical location in one context (one possible referent), yet may
mean a student's examination and coursework marks in another (a different referent).
Similarly, we can extend our consideration of pragmatics to include stylistics: the
style in which language is written. The same pragmatic response may be stimulated
by a different set of tokens (or the same set arranged with a different syntax) - this
may produce a different emotional response.
This Saussurian view of language as a static representation of meaning can be
contrasted with the view of Bhaktin [2] who considers language to be a dynamic
process whereby a text is interacted with and manipulated, and its meaning con-
structed dynamically. This active and engaged understanding, Bhaktin says, creates
new meanings: “… establishes a series of complex interrelationships, consonances
and dissonances … [and] various different points of view, conceptual horizons …
come to interact with one another” [2].
While Bhaktin's theory of the dynamic interpretation and negotiation of linguistic
texts was primarily based around the social context of language interpretation and the
construction of ideologies within cultures and institutions, it is a useful complement to
the “language as representation” perspective presented above. We can use this alter-
nate view of “language as a process” in our framework for Information Visualization:
a model of data embodied in a visualization must be explored, manipulated and
adapted within a investigatory process resulting in enhanced understanding of its
meaning. When there are two processing agents in a human-computer interaction
context (the human and the computer), either or both can perform this processing.
Thus, we can relate discussion of theoretical approaches to Information Visualiza-
tion to the concepts of
•
Interpretation of a visualization through its external physical form (referents,
and lexical, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and stylistic structures), an activ-
ity typically performed by a reader;
•
Exploration and manipulation of the external representation by the reader so
as to discover more about the underlying model, typically done through in-
teraction facilities provided by a visualization tool; and
•
Exploration and manipulation of the internal data model by the system in or-
der to discover interrelationships, trends and patterns, so as to enable them to
be represented appropriately.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search