Talk:Draft taxonomy: Difference between revisions

From InfoVis:Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(added some issues for discussion)
(Interaction - where to put it?)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== what requires work? ==
== what requires work? ==


=== Some things repeat ===


* Applications
???
** in Education


* Multimedia and E-Learning


* Education
== added [[Sonification]]  ==


A related field or subfield?


=== I'm not clear what some things are; ===
Either way  [[Sonification]]  seems to share many of the same concerns, and would seem to be complementary at the very least.


* Visual Analytics
Comments?
* Knowledge Visualisation
** New Classifications


* in Built and Rural Environments
== Interaction - where to put it? ==


* Visual Data Mining
"Interaction techniques" is both, a high level element in the taxonomy and also a part of "Visualization Design Patterns" / "Interaction Patterns". It is hard for me to discern the difference? In order to reflect the importance of interaction, I would rather vote for making it a top level entry and moving down the interaction patterns entries...


=== these also needs refinement - or at least a note (in brackets) to clearly differentiate a heading. ===
-- [[User:Iwolf|Wolfgang Aigner]] 10:19, 8 April 2008 (CEST)
 
* Applications  (applications of other fields to InfoVis)
** of Graph Theory
** of Information Extraction
** of Data Mining
* Augmented, Mixed and Virtual Reality
 
[[Category:Coffee Room]]

Latest revision as of 10:19, 8 April 2008

what requires work?[edit]

???


added Sonification[edit]

A related field or subfield?

Either way Sonification seems to share many of the same concerns, and would seem to be complementary at the very least.

Comments?

Interaction - where to put it?[edit]

"Interaction techniques" is both, a high level element in the taxonomy and also a part of "Visualization Design Patterns" / "Interaction Patterns". It is hard for me to discern the difference? In order to reflect the importance of interaction, I would rather vote for making it a top level entry and moving down the interaction patterns entries...

-- Wolfgang Aigner 10:19, 8 April 2008 (CEST)