Information visualization limits itself, per definition, to the domain of symbolic information. This paper discusses arguments why the field should also consider forms of data that are not symbolically encoded, including physical traces and material indicators. Continuing a provocation presented by Pat Hanrahan in his 2004 IEEE Vis capstone address, this paper compares physical traces to visualizations and describes the techniques and visual practices for producing, revealing, and interpreting them. By contrasting information visualization with a speculative counter model of autographic visualization, this paper examines the design principles for material data. Autographic visualization addresses limitations of information visualization, such as the inability to directly reflect the material circumstances of data generation. The comparison between the two models allows probing the epistemic assumptions behind information visualization and uncovers linkages with the rich history of scientific visualization and trace reading.
翻译:本文讨论了为什么这个领域还应考虑非象征性编码的数据形式,包括物理痕迹和物质指标。帕特·汉拉汉继续在其2004年IEEE Vis Capstone 地址中进行挑衅,将物理痕迹与可视化进行比较,并描述了制作、披露和解释这些痕迹的技术和视觉做法。通过将信息可视化与一个投机性的可见化反模式进行对比,本文件研究了材料数据的设计原则。自闭可视化解决了信息可视化的局限性,例如无法直接反映数据生成的物质环境。两种模型之间的比较使得可以对信息可视化背后的典型假设进行研究,并发现与丰富的科学可视化和微读历史的联系。