1992
Computer Mapping
Use of Interactive Graphics
-- / --
Annex 10 of Visualization
of International Relationship Networks (1992)
Summary
(a) Description: The suggestion has been made above that the representation
of the relationship between theoretical entities (concepts, organizations,
problems, etc) could best be accomplished using methods based on
graph theory, network theory and topology. The relationships registered
in this project could be plotted manually as networks. However, particularly
since the relationships are already coded on computer tape in a suitable
format, there are three major disadvantages to this manual approach:
-
graphic relationships are tiresome and time-consuming to draw, and
are costly if budgeted as "art work" (for a comprehensive review
of the current possibilites and limitations, see reference 28);
-
once drawn, there is a strong resistance to updating them (because
of the previous point) and therefore they quickly become useless (as is
frequently the case with organization charts);
-
when the graph is complex, multidimensional, and carries much information,
it is difficult to draw satisfactorily in two dimensions. The mass of information
cannot be filtered to highlight particular features - unless yet another
diagram is prepared.
These three difficulties can be overcome by making use of what is known
as "interactive graphics" (29). This is basically a television-type
screen attached to a computer. The user sits at a keyboard in front of
the screen and has at his disposal what is known as a light-pen (or some
equivalent device) which allows him to point to elements of the network
of concepts displayed on the screen and instruct the computer to manipulate
them in useful ways. In other words the user can
interact with the
representation of the conceptual network using the full power of the computer
to take care of the drudgery of:
-
- drawing in neat lines;
-
- making amendments;
-
- displaying only part of the network so that the user is not over-
loaded with "relevant" information.
In effect the graphics device provides the user with a window or viewport
onto the network of concepts. He can instruct the computer, via the keyboard,
to:
-
(i) Move the window to give him, effectively, a view onto a
different part of the network - another conceptual domain;
-
(ii) Introduce magnification so that he can examine (or "zoom
in" on) some detailed sections of the network;
-
(iii) Introduce diminution so that he can gain an overall view
of the structure of the conceptual domain in which he is interested;
-
(iv) Introduce filters so that only certain types of relationships
and entities are displayed - either he can switch between models or he
can impose restrictions on the relationships displayed within a model,
ie he has a hierarchy of filters at his disposal;
-
(v) Modify parts of the network displayed to him by inserting
or deleting entities and relationships. Security codes can be arranged
to that (a) he can modify the display for his own immediate use without
permanently affecting the basic store of data, (b) he can permanently modify
features of the model for which he is a member of the responsible body,
(c) and so on;
-
(vi) Supply text labels to features of the network which are
unfamiliar to him. If necessary he can split his viewport into two (or
more) parts and have the parts of the network displayed in one (or more)
part(s). He can then use the light pen to point to each entity or relationship
on which he wants a longer text description (eg the justifying argument
for an entity or the mathematical function, if applicable, governing a
relationship, and have it displayed in an adjoining viewport);
-
(vii) Track along the relationships between one entity and the
next by moving the viewport to focus on each new entity. In this way the
user moves through a representation of "semantic space" with
each move, changing the constellation of entities displayed and bringing
new entities and relationships into view;
-
(viii) Move up or down levels or "ladders of abstraction".
The user can demand that the computer track the display (see point 7) between
levels of abstraction, moving from sub-system to system, at each move bringing
into view the context of the system displayed;
-
(ix) Distinguish between entities and relationships on the basis of
user- selected characteristics. The user can have the "relevant"
(to him) entities displayed with more prominent symbols, and the relevant
relationships with heavier lines;
-
(x) Select an alternative form of presentation. Some users may
prefer block diagram flow charts, others may prefera matrix display, others
may prefer Venn diagrams (or "Venn spheres" in 3 dimensions)
to illustrate the relationship between entities. These are all interconvertible
(eg the Venn circles are computed taking each network node as a
centre and giving a radius to include all the sub- branches of the network
from that node);
-
(xi) Copy a particular display currently on the screen. A user
may want to keep a personal record of parts of the network which are of
interest to him. (He can either arrange for a dump onto a tape which can
drive a graph plotter, a microfilm plotter, or copy onto a videocassette,
or, in the future, obtain a direct photocopy);
-
(xii) Arrange for a simultaneous search through a coded microfilm to
provide appropriate slide images or lengthy text (which can in its
turn be photocopies);
-
(xiii) Simulate a three-dimensional presentation of the network
by introducing an extra coordinate axis;
-
(xiv) Rotate a three-dimensional structure (about the X or Y
axis) in order to heighten the 3-D effect and obtain a better view "around"
the structure;
-
(xv) Simulate a four-dimensional presentation of the network
by using various techniques for distinguishing entities and relationships
(eg "flashing" relationships at frequencies corresponding
to their importance in terms of the fourth dimension);
-
(xvi) Change the speed at which the magnification from the viewport
is modified as a particular structure is rotated;
-
(xvii) Simulate the consequences of various changes introduced
by the user in terms of his conditions. This is particularly useful for
cybernetic displays;
-
(xviii) Perform various analyses on particular parts of the
network and display the results in a secondary viewport (eg the
user might point a light-pen at an entity and request its centrality or
request an indication of the interconnectedness of a particular domain
delimitted with the light pen.);
-
(xix) Use colour (when a colour screen is available) to distinguish
between different concepts or networks of relationships on the same display.
Several hundred colour codes are available under computer control (3);
-
(xx) Experiment with the generation of paths for the construction
of hypothetical larger conceptual units (eg organizations) from
available smaller units, as suggested by equivalent work on computer- assisted
design of complex organic syntheses (2).
In every current use of interactive graphics there is some notion of geometry
and space, but the geometry is always the three-dimensional conventional
space. There is no reason why "non-physical spaces" should not
be displayed instead - and this is the domain of topology. The argument
has been developed by Dean Brown and Joan Lewis (3):
"
Both geometry and topology deal with the notion of space, but
geometry's preoccupation with shapes and measure is replaced in topology
by more abstract, less restrictive ideas of the qualities of things...Being
more abstract and less insistent on fine points such as size, topology
gives a richer formalism to adapt as a tool for the contemplation of ideas....Concepts
can be viewed as manifolds in the multidimensional variate space spanned
by the parameters describing the situation. If a correspondence is established
that represents our incomplete knowledge by altitude functions, we can
seek the terrae incognitae, plateaus, enclaves of knowledge, cusps, peaks,
and saddles by a conceptual photogrammetry. Exploring the face of a new
concept would be comparable to exploring the topography of the back of
the moon. Commonly heard remarks such as "Now I'm beginning to get
the picture" are perhaps an indication that these processes already
play an unsuspected role in conceptualization....By sketching tentative
three-dimensional perspectives on the screen and "rotating them on
the tips of his fingers", one internalizes ideas non- verbally and
acquires a sensation of sailing through structures of concepts much as
a cosmonaut sailing through constellations of stars. Such new ways of creating
representations break ingrained thought patterns and force re- examination
of preconceived notions. A mapping is a correspondence is an analogy. Teaching
by analogy, always a fertile device, can be carried out beautifully by
topological means....Topological techniques are useful at even the most
advanced levels of scientific conceptualization...."
The fundamental importance of interactive graphics, in whatever form, is
its ability to facilitate understanding. Progress in understanding is made
through the development of mental models or symbolic notations that permit
a simple representation of a mass of complexities not previously understood.
There is nothing new in the use of models to represent psycho- social abstractions.
Jay Forrester (4), making this same point with respect to social systems,
states:
"
Every person in his private life and in his community life uses
models for decision making. The mental image of the world around one, carried
in each individual's head, is a model. One does not have a family, a business,
a city, a government, or a country in his head. He has only selected concepts
and relationships which he uses to represent the real system. The human
mind selects a few percpetions, which may be right or wrong, and uses them
as a description of the world around us. On the basis of these assumptions
a person estimates the system behaviour that he believes is implied....The
human mind is excellent in its ability to observe the elementary forces
and actions of which a system is composed. The human mind is effective
in identifying the structure into which separate scraps of information
can be fitted. But when the pieces of the system have been assembled, the
mind is nearly useless for anticipating the dynamic behaviour that the
system implies. Here the computer is ideal. It will trace the interactions
of any specified set of relationships without doubt or error. The mental
model is fuzzy. It is incomplete. It is imprecisely stated. Furthermore,
even within one individual, the mental model changes with time and with
the flow of conversation. The human mind assembles a few relationships
to fit the context of a discussion. As the subject shifts, so does the
model. Even as a single topic is being discussed, each participant in a
conversation is using a different mental model through which to interpret
the subject. And it is not surprising that consensus leads to actions which
produce unintended results. Fundamental assumptions differ but are never
brought out into the open."
These structured models have to be applied to any serially ordered data
in card files, computer printout or reference books to make sense of that
data. Is there any reason why these invisible structural models should
not be made visible to clarify differences and build a more comprehensive
visible model? The greater the complexity, however, the more difficult
it is to use mental models. For example, in discussing his examination
of an electronic circuit diagram, Ivan Sutherland writes (5):
"Unfortunately, my abstract model tends to fade out when I get
a circuit that is a little bit too complex. I can't remember what is happening
in one place long enough to see what is going to happen somewhere else.
My model evaporates. If I could somehow represent that abstract model in
the computer to see a circuit in animation, my abstraction wouldn't evaporate.
I could take the vague notion that "fades out at the edges" and
solidify it. I could analyze bigger circuits. In all fields there are such
abstractions. We haven't yet made any use of the computer's capability
to "firm up" these abstractions. The scientist of today is limited
by his pencil and paper and mind. He can draw abstractions, or he can think
about them. If he draws them, they will be static, and if he just visualizes
them they won't have very good mathematical properties and will fade out.
With the computer, we could give him a great deal more. We could give him
drawings that move, drawings in three or four dimensions which he can rotate,
and drawings with great mathematical accuracy. We could let him work with
them in a way that he has never been able to do before. I think that really
big gains in the substantive scientific areas are going to come when somebody
invents new abstractions which can only be represented in computer graphical
form."
The availability of devices to restructure information in this way would
seem to offer some hope that insights could emerge which respond more adequately
to the recorded complexity of societal structure, whilst at the same time
being more easily comprehensible to the uninitiated - because of the ease
with which such devices can be used as educational tools to develop understanding
and comprehension of the same structural data from which the research insights
are being derived. Such displays of course lend themselves to videotape
recording for wider distribution.
(b) Implications of computer augmentation of intellect: There are
important intellectual implications emerging from work on advanced computer
systems. Of particular interest is the work of Douglas Engelbart's team
at the Center for Augmentation of Human Intellect (Stanford Research Institute)
which is a centre for the US ARPA Data Network (which links the computers
of major universities in the USA). Engelbart has worked on the means of
creating an "intellectual workshop" to facilitate interaction
between conceptual structures (6). He considers that:
"Concepts seem to be structurable, in that a new concept can be
composed of an organization of established concepts and that a concept
structure is something which we might try to develop on paper for ourselves
or work with by conscious thought processes, or as something which we try
to communicate to one another in serious discussion....A given structure
of concepts can be represented by any of an infinite number of different
symbol structures, some of which would be much better than others for enabling
the human perceptual and cognitive apparatus to search out and comprehend
the conceptual matter of significance and/or interest to the human. But
it is not only the form of a symbol structure that is important. A problem
solver is involved in a stream of conceptual activity whose course serves
his mental needs of the moment. The sequence and nature of these needs
are quite variable, and yet for each need he may benefit significantly
from a form of symbol structuring that is uniquely efficient for that need.
Therefore, besides the forms of symbol structures that can be constructed
and portrayed, we are very much concerned with the speed and flexibility
with which one form can be transformed into another, and with which new
material can be located and portrayed. We are generally used to thinking
of our symbol structures as a pattern of marks on a sheet of paper. When
we want a different symbol-structure view, we think of shifting our point
of attention on the sheet, or moving a new sheet into position. With a
computer manipulatingour symbols and generating their portrayals to us
on a display, we no longer need think of our looking at the symbol structure
which is stored - as we think of looking at the symbol structures stored
in notebooks, memos, and books. What the computer actually stores need
be none of our concern, assuming that it can portray symbol structures
to us that are consistent with the form in which we think our information
is structured. A given concept structure can be representated with a symbol
structure that is completely compatible with the computer's internal way
of handling symbols, with all sorts of characteristics and relationships
given explicit identifications that the user may never directly see. In
fact, this structuring has immensely greater potential for accurately mapping
a complex concept structure than does a structure an individual would find
it practical to construct or use on paper. The computer can transform back
and forth between the two- dimensional portrayal on the screen, of some
limited view of the total structure, and the aspect of the n-dimensional
internal image that represents this "view". If the human adds
to or modifies such a "view", the computer integrates the change
into the internal-image symbol structure (in terms of the computer's favored
symbols and structuring) and thereby automatically detects a certain proportion
of his possible conceptual inconsistencies. Thus, inside this instrument
(the computer) there is an internal-image, computer-symbol structure whose
convolutions and multi- dimensionality we can learn to shape to represent
to hitherto unattainable accuracy the concept structure we might be building
or working with. This internal structure may have a form that is nearly
incomprehensible to the direct inspection of a human (except in minute
chunks)."
These insights have been incorporated into the design of an
operational
computer system which is now being developed so that it will be possible
to use computer devices as a sort of
"electronic vehicle with which
one could drive around with extraordinary freedom through the information
domain. Imagine driving a car through a landscape which, instead of buildings,
roads, and trees, had groves of facts, structures of ideas, and so on,
relevant to your professional interests? But this information landscape
is a remarkably organized one; not only can you drive around a grove of
certain arranged facts, and look at it from many aspects, you have the
capability of totally reorganizing that grove almost instantaneously. You
could put a road right through the center of it, under it, or over it,
giving you, say, a bird's eye view of how its components might be arranged
for your greater usefulness and ease of comprehension. This vehicle gives
you a flexible method for separating, as it were, the woods from the trees."
(7)
(c) Conclusion: Application of this kind of technology to an understanding
of the world problem complex has not been attempted. As explained above,
such devices offer a means of developing improved conceptual (and associated
organizational) structures to contain the complexity with which humanity
has to deal at this point in time. Of vital importance is the ability of
these devices to portray the information in a more meaningful (or "iconic")
form than emerges from conventional quantitative studies. This is particularly
important in communicating with the informed public but specially so with
the policy-making community, as Harold Lasswell notes (8): "
Why
do we put so much emphasis on audio-visual means of portraying goal, trend,
condition, projection, and alternative? Partly because so many valuable
participants in decision-making have dramatizing imaginations...They are
not enamoured of numbers or of analytic abstractions. They are at their
best in deliberations that encourage contextuality by a varied repertory
of means, and where an immediate sense of time, space, and figure is retained."