langreiter.com plain, simple: comments-2002-04-22

LANGREITER.COM plain, simple

START

INDEX

Montag, 22. April 2002

www.cwi.nl/InfoVisu/Survey/StarGraphVisuInInfoVis.html

www.caida.org/tools/visualization/walrus/

2002-04-22-graphLayout

"PySomorph is a Python package for investingating subgraph isomorphism. Subgraph Isomorphism is useful for a number of pratical applications spanning from relational theory to investigating chemical structures."

2002-04-22-pyIsomorph

The highly usable V1.01 release of the TouchGraph WikiBrowser is finally out!

Now you can visually browse through the pages of MeatballWiki and EmacsWiki (others too).

See news of the release + download the application (with source) at touchgraph.sourceforge.net

2002-04-22-tgWikiBrowser

David Ness 8252 days AGO
I'm looking forward to some reports of effective use of technology like the `visual browsing' stuff. I was startled at how ineffective the `Visual Tour' aspects of my Wiki pages proved to be, and so far have not found any `visual tours' where the density of linkage proved to be helpful in leading me anyplace useful.

But, of course, that perhaps is `just me' and may not be the case for others. It leaves me torn between the hope that `there's something there'---which I might thus be able to learn----and the nattering feeing that `there's nothing there'---other than another `web distraction' that wastes time getting me nowhere, that is.

alex_s 8252 days AGO
Density of the linkage? Was it too high or too low. If you found that the density was too high then it could be helpfull manually hide some of the nodes, especially the center node. That tends to loosen the graph up so that you can see the interrelations between the peripheral links. ... If the density was too low, then you could just increase the radius, and chose to show back links.

Also, another problem is that it's Your wiki. My guess is that this tool would be most helpfull to those unfamiliar with a wiki that want to get an overview of it's contents. Having categories and road maps is one way of doing so, and having a graph of the interconnections between the pages is another. It could even be argued that the graph gives a more objective look at a wiki, since it does not depend on someone to give a summary (... but I won't argue this :)

A final comment is that there is an inherent difficulty in doing this kind of visualization, and that is that the data was not intentionally designed to be visualized. The TGWikiBrowser allows for an "after the fact" visualization of the data. The hope is that once such visualizations become available, users can seek feedback from the visual representation of their work, and thus produce a prettier picture. Of course, I don't expect this to happen for Wikis in their current incarnation, but perhaps a better system could be built where this type of feedback would indeed occur.

--Alex

chris 8221 days AGO
Please keep in mind that my "effective use" may well be your "waste of time". For my part, I find visualizations like this almost always useful and inspiring in some (sometimes somewhat weird and unexpected) way.

I haven't ever used Google's "Related Pages" feature before, but now that Martin has built this kind of interface, it did already open interesting avenues for further research and exploration — and all that only by following URLs that somewhat caught my interest. The true coolness behind it is of course Google's (or rather all the contributors that make this kind of "Collective Filtering" possible at all).

Pseudo-Mindmaps probably don't help much when doing repetitive, measurable work — but because they help broaden my short-term memory "horizon" while looking at them, they help me discover relationships I wouldn't have thought existed and let me discover patterns where none were expected. In that context, I consider them to be tools to increase the chance of serendipitous discoveries to happen.

Certainly all of those experiences can be greatly improved and the features made more useful, e.g. by color/size/shape-coding several snip or link attributes (age, popularity etc.) — and I plan to experiment with this as time permits.

Visualizations inspire me, and besides, they make for pretty pictures (that alone being a goal well worth pursuing, in my not-so-humble opinion ;-).

Would you say that taking notes increases your memory? Would you say that drawing maps to relate your thoughts helps you thinking? If you do — I do —, then it's not unlikely to find enjoyment in visualizations like those.

YMMV.

David Ness 8251 days AGO
As usual the comments are helpful, and I will have to spell out my further remarks in a form longer than would be appropriate here. But, let me give a couple of answers in passing.

First, to Alex, IME the density of linkage has too often been _both_ too little, on many pages, and too dense on most other pages. Only rarely---and then by chance---was it a tolerable number. And on my Wiki, the Visual Tour graphs have alwas focussed on (again IMO) the most boring aspects of what was there. This is proably an artifact of the rule that `paints' tour graphs based on `most linked' nodes. The may be most linked, but they also seem to be `most boring'.

To Chris, I'm haven't found any characterizations of people or problems that lets me predict whether this kind of formulation will be useful _in advance_. Of course I won't, and can't, dispute what someone else will prove to find useful.

A further, and it seems to me potentially more profound, problem is that the `links' are actually `typed' but this is rather completely lost in the visualizations. A bunch of items may be linked to a date by `occurred on' links, but this may not add much to our `picture'. Worse, `Hates Cobol and never uses it, but loves Perl and uses it everyday' may end up with similar looking links to both Cobol and Perl, while the reality might be better shown by suppressing any link to Cobol.

What I am waiting for, I guess, are some credible stories about things that people have actually used these technologies to `discover'. What I tend to hear, I guess, is stories of `how nice it will be' (mindful of the old story of the thrice-married virgin that was so popular in the early days of computers). While I don't doubt that some people may have their `thinking helped' by such technologies, unless there are more concrete reports, I tend to treat them the same way I do report of religious inspiration: I don't doubt them, but I don't find them very useful for guiding myself or others either.

Please log in (you may want to register first) to post comments!