zz,virt: Reply to Peter: Viz'n & "Metaphors"

[Ted Nelson <ted@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Now we come to Visualization and Metaphors, 
 a touchy issue.  

Peter saith:

>This gave me an idea that a linkage could be graphically represented by
>fading in images of the next screen, in the way that some windows (Mac for
>instance) appear to grow from or shrink to their icons. 

Okay.

>If I "rolled" into
>another dimension, the screen would briefly suggest the new screen rotating
>into place, hinging on one side or another, or along the current cell/axis;
>or "forward" and "back" movement. 

Sounds fine.  You could make it look like that.

>On a typical screen, this would seem to
>be limited to x or y -axis rotation, but I suppose if one were clever it
>could be represented along diagonals too. 

Yup.  For example, a triangular ball-and-grid
 structure could show three dimensions at once.

>Some way would be needed to deal
>with jumps to cells that were not strung together this way; 

Eh?  You mean cold jumps, I suppose,
 rather than rotating to a dimension in which
 they *are* strung together.

>I mean, just
>because my head likes to fold and intersect stuff doesn't mean Zigzag has
>to work that way.

Well, give it a chance.  It'll work pretty much
 the way you want.

>This suggests itself to me because we have these mental maps, we talk of
>"this space" all the time. I worked in a hospital pushing gurneys, and had
>a mental image of the buildings, but only from the inside of the corridors
>and rooms. [In my nightmares, the floors were not level anymore, and there
>were rivers to cross, and hostile gangs hanging on the corners, and all the
>patients were late. In both senses.] In the same way, I have a mental image
>of where I'm "going" when I move around in an application, even though it's
>just a succession of flat screens. Parts of the apps I write seem to be to
>the left, or up, or behind me, etc. 

Yes, spaces are useful and spatial models
 can be useful...

>I think this is why Windows has
>succeeded so well in capturing the markets it has, even as clumsy as the
>file metaphor may be. It's just the traditional triumph of mediocrity, no
>big deal. 

Wait.  

"Files" are not a metaphor but a pervasive structure
 that has been assigned exact, specific properties
 in the conventional computer world, and implemented
 everywhere in nearly the same ways.

The picture of a file *folder* has been assigned to
 that concept as a way of reassuring people.  But it
 has not changed the concept in any way.

Arraying such folder icons in a 2D arrangement
 helps people map relations to them in their minds.
 I think that's what you're talking about?

(Though it beats me why this vertical arrangement
 is called the "desktop" (I never saw a vertical desktop,
 nor one where things jumped to the top if you
 touched their corner).

I wish to overturn the entire model of large-lump
 named hierarchical files.

>But to be intuitive to more users, Zigzag needs an implementation
>with a visually-presented metaphor. One difference from Windows, to my
>mind, is that in Zigzag, we are inside the space, maybe looking at the
>walls (or sky), not looking at "documents" from a "file" on a "desktop".

Okay, now you're outside of ZigZag.
 As a ZZ user or developer you're more than
 welcome to develop new visualizations.
 However, there will be no *official* view.

All views are correct.

>It seems to me that Zigzag isn't going to escape the imposition of some
>metaphor, 

The market can do what it like.
 From the factory, there will be a variety
 of presentations, but no Official View.

And CERTAINLY no (yaargh) METAPHOR!

I believe the word "metaphor" in computers
 (like the words "absolute" and "maturity"
 in general conversation) almost *automatically*
 gums up thought and makes clarity impossible.

The term is currently being used for a ridiculous
 variety of things: 
1)  for the analogies used in places
 like the Mac screen-- scraps of resemblances
 presented to beginners for comfort;
2)  for any vague structural resemblance (I heard
 a guy talk about a "museum metaphor," when
 eventually his museum was just a series of chained
 environments-- "rooms"-- the "metaphor" created
 total confusion;
3)  for pervasive and specific structures such as
 hierarchical files;
4)  for "space"-- which as far as I'm concerned is
 not a metaphor but a pervasive system of structure.

The terminology I insist on is "virtuality",
 meaning *seeming* (it's in the dictionary from
 centuries past); a virtuality consists of a conceptual
 structure and a feel, both of which I can lecture about
 for hours.  

In any case, I insist that "metaphor" should be
 reserved for resemblances to conventional objects,
 not for abstract structure.

With that clarified, NO, I do not care to put
 any official appearance on this thing.  But I do
 fully intend to make it much clearer by many means
 (for instance, a given window and its cursor will
 only rotate through their relevant dimensions)
 and graphic images instead of block cells have
 a rather high priority.  

But I believe clarity will come from the elucidation
 of the particular structures, rather than painting
 them to look like lollipops or fish or toasters or
 whatever.

(Sorry-- that word is my hottest button.)

But hey-- if YOU want to deliver a metaphorical
 interface, be my guest!  Like the Model T Ford
 (which only came in black), it can be painted
 any way once it rolls out the door.

LvT


>so working up a good comprehensive one would be good to do before
>it just evolves. If you want to be sure it is transclusive.
>
>Also I can see where this kind of thinking could be added to my latest
>database work, which is all hierarchies now. Would you find that
>interesting?




At 07:21 PM 7/6/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Ted,
>
>>> You shd repost this to the ZZ groop-- T <<
>
>Riposte? Ok, but I'll be sorry. This buisness of my lengthy messages has me
>really concerned. I can't help myself, but that doesn't mean it's
>appropriate here. I might be babbling on about horsies and duckys to a lot
>of equestrians and ornithologists. It's hard to tell. The old Compuserve
>"forums" are very useful for sorting this out.
>
>Your remarks on "rotating" to another dimension clunked for me thus. I can
>move along a row, then use it like an axis. I'm seeing Rollodexes strung
>together like one of those Jacob's Ladder toys where you flip the top block
>in a chain, and the next one flops, and the one below that flips, etc. This
>still has me thinking in cubes, but I understand that Zigzag is
>multidimensional. I can't quite get my head around that, but maybe geodesic
>or polyhedral figures offer a clue. Or soap bubbles. Remember
>Hexaflexigons?
>
>This gave me an idea that a linkage could be graphically represented by
>fading in images of the next screen, in the way that some windows (Mac for
>instance) appear to grow from or shrink to their icons. If I "rolled" into
>another dimension, the screen would briefly suggest the new screen rotating
>into place, hinging on one side or another, or along the current cell/axis;
>or "forward" and "back" movement. On a typical screen, this would seem to
>be limited to x or y -axis rotation, but I suppose if one were clever it
>could be represented along diagonals too. Some way would be needed to deal
>with jumps to cells that were not strung together this way; I mean, just
>because my head likes to fold and intersect stuff doesn't mean Zigzag has
>to work that way.
>
>This suggests itself to me because we have these mental maps, we talk of
>"this space" all the time. I worked in a hospital pushing gurneys, and had
>a mental image of the buildings, but only from the inside of the corridors
>and rooms. [In my nightmares, the floors were not level anymore, and there
>were rivers to cross, and hostile gangs hanging on the corners, and all the
>patients were late. In both senses.] In the same way, I have a mental image
>of where I'm "going" when I move around in an application, even though it's
>just a succession of flat screens. Parts of the apps I write seem to be to
>the left, or up, or behind me, etc. I think this is why Windows has
>succeeded so well in capturing the markets it has, even as clumsy as the
>file metaphor may be. It's just the traditional triumph of mediocrity, no
>big deal. But to be intuitive to more users, Zigzag needs an implementation
>with a visually-presented metaphor. One difference from Windows, to my
>mind, is that in Zigzag, we are inside the space, maybe looking at the
>walls (or sky), not looking at "documents" from a "file" on a "desktop".
>
>It seems to me that Zigzag isn't going to escape the imposition of some
>metaphor, so working up a good comprehensive one would be good to do before
>it just evolves. If you want to be sure it is transclusive.
>
>Also I can see where this kind of thinking could be added to my latest
>database work, which is all hierarchies now. Would you find that
>interesting?
>
>Peter
>
>
>At 04:49 PM 6/29/98 -0400, you [I] wrote:
>>Ted,
>>.net
________________________________________________________
Theodor Holm Nelson, Visiting Professor of Environmental Information
 Keio University, Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Fujisawa, Japan
http://www.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~ted/    PERMANENT E-MAIL: ted@xxxxxxxxxx
 Home Fax: 0466-46-7368  From USA: 011-81-466-46-7368
_________________________________________________________
Project Xanadu (Permanent)
 3020 Bridgeway #295, Sausalito CA 94965
 Tel. 415/ 331-4422, fax 415/ 332-0136
http://www.xanadu.net
_________________________________________________________
Second Quotation of the day, 98.07.06:
Yesterday is history.  Tomorrow is a mystery. But today is a gift.  That's
why it's called the Present.  -- Author unknown