• it’s worth noting that there are different kinds of physical places just as there are different kinds of virtual places. there are things like “town” “country” “home” “party” “star” – notions of place with different contexts and different resolutions. so maybe i shouldn’t write off the physical metaphors as quickly just because Bob don’t cut it.
  I like the idea of creating a ‘landscape.’
  I think we need some sort of persistent sesnse of place if the digital world is going to fully intertwine with the physical.
• right now one obstacle to higher education is the specialized training that is required to get to a point where you can make sense of information. i want more people to have better tools to see more information in more meaningful ways in daily life.
• :) Ben Schneiderman’s head expanded quickly (reaction to infovis mapping of the infovis literature)
• names and titles, even buzzy keywords, don’t seem that helpful to me when people are first starting to figure out how their thoughts and ideas relate to what’s already out there.
  what is?
• key points
• implications
• ‘respect’ given? – response from community
• dynamic visualization is powerful. computers allow visualizations to be much more dynamic than paper visualizations, so levels and variables can be navigable rather than having to be captured from the outset. this seems to be a really important part of computer imagination as applied to visualization
• current infovis doesn’t always take the connections between the information and the physical world into account…
  ?that’s not quite the best way of saying it…
  it doesn’t acknowledge that we are contructing and information space out of erik’s digital material?

This entry was posted on Friday, January 13th, 2006 at 12:30 pm and is filed under notes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.