From mail at janeharper.com  Mon Sep  1 10:25:28 2008
From: mail at janeharper.com (jane harper)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:25:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
In-Reply-To: <6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
References: <a06200707c4e024a30638@[192.168.0.2]>
	<CA303908-D4A3-428B-ADB9-7746116C19A9@janeharper.com>
	<6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <05AFC29D-2C1C-4799-8B18-A839D24B97E1@janeharper.com>

should have read it carefully the first time! thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Aug 2008, at 21:42, "elizabeth.lomas"  
<elizabeth.lomas at unn.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think that it is the idea that each batch of water needs to be  
> kept boiling for up to two weeks before being drunk - although I had  
> to read it twice!
>
> Good example of a human error.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf  
> of jane harper
> Sent: Sun 31/08/2008 21:31
> To: Discussions about information design
> Subject: Re: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
>
>
>
> why is this seen to be funny?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 11:38, Conrad Taylor <conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My mother informs me that one of our water companies has been
>> having problems in one area with water quality, so they have
>> made an announcement to the effect that residents are advised
>> to boil any water intended for human consumption "for about
>> a fortnight".
>>
>> Could get expensive.
>>
>> Conrad
>>
>> --
>> the Conradiator: http://conradiator.wordpress.com <http://conradiator.wordpress.com/ 
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>>
>> For all Information Design matters:
>> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>>
>> Problems? Write to:
>> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
>> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________

From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 02:49:13 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:49:13 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BC8D89.4020107@she-philosopher.com>

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

	"I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
	affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.
	
	"'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
	&c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
	Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
	complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
	the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
	'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
	Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
	several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
	that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
	Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
	Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
	containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
	&c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
	taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
	that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
	Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
	booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
	ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
	in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
	the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
	each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com


From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 04:37:33 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:37:33 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
Message-ID: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm new to this listserv, but I am taking an Information Design course and
I'm really interested in finding ways that comics can be applied to this
field. Does anyone know of any sources that I can look to, to begin my
research in this area?

I'm at Clemson University and I am taking the class under Sean William (at
the Ph.D. level).

Anything that you think would help me at least begin research will be much
appreciated. I am adrift in a sea of information looking for a compass on
how these two field mix.


Serg


--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/50b3e74f/attachment.htm 

From mail at janeharper.com  Mon Sep  1 10:25:28 2008
From: mail at janeharper.com (jane harper)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:25:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
In-Reply-To: <6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
References: <a06200707c4e024a30638@[192.168.0.2]>
	<CA303908-D4A3-428B-ADB9-7746116C19A9@janeharper.com>
	<6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <05AFC29D-2C1C-4799-8B18-A839D24B97E1@janeharper.com>

should have read it carefully the first time! thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Aug 2008, at 21:42, "elizabeth.lomas"  
<elizabeth.lomas at unn.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think that it is the idea that each batch of water needs to be  
> kept boiling for up to two weeks before being drunk - although I had  
> to read it twice!
>
> Good example of a human error.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf  
> of jane harper
> Sent: Sun 31/08/2008 21:31
> To: Discussions about information design
> Subject: Re: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
>
>
>
> why is this seen to be funny?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 11:38, Conrad Taylor <conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My mother informs me that one of our water companies has been
>> having problems in one area with water quality, so they have
>> made an announcement to the effect that residents are advised
>> to boil any water intended for human consumption "for about
>> a fortnight".
>>
>> Could get expensive.
>>
>> Conrad
>>
>> --
>> the Conradiator: http://conradiator.wordpress.com <http://conradiator.wordpress.com/ 
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>>
>> For all Information Design matters:
>> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>>
>> Problems? Write to:
>> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
>> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 02:49:13 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:49:13 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BC8D89.4020107@she-philosopher.com>

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

	"I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
	affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.
	
	"'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
	&c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
	Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
	complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
	the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
	'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
	Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
	several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
	that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
	Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
	Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
	containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
	&c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
	taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
	that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
	Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
	booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
	ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
	in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
	the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
	each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 04:37:33 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:37:33 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
Message-ID: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm new to this listserv, but I am taking an Information Design course and
I'm really interested in finding ways that comics can be applied to this
field. Does anyone know of any sources that I can look to, to begin my
research in this area?

I'm at Clemson University and I am taking the class under Sean William (at
the Ph.D. level).

Anything that you think would help me at least begin research will be much
appreciated. I am adrift in a sea of information looking for a compass on
how these two field mix.


Serg


--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/50b3e74f/attachment-0001.htm 

From farkas at u.washington.edu  Tue Sep  2 07:56:32 2008
From: farkas at u.washington.edu (David Farkas)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:32 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>

Serg,

 

I teach information design, and I assign Scott McCloud's "I Can't Stop
Thinking #4."

http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-4/icst-4.html

 

ICST-4 shows students (if they don't already know this) that sequential art
("comics") can be used for serious exposition. (Scott McCloud's wonderful
Understanding Comics and his other books also show this.)

 

ICST-4 (along with his other online comics) also demonstrates some
interesting relationships between medium, genre, and format. When McCloud
moves from paper to the Web, he continues to work in the same genres, but
his formatting changes dramatically. Instead of being confined to little
boxes, McCloud exuberantly spreads his visuals down a very long scrolling
HTML page, and he explores the expressive possibilities of this new format.
It's also interesting that McCloud largely rejects hypertext, one of the key
behaviors available in the Web medium.

 

Dave

 

David K. Farkas, Professor         
Dept. of Technical Communication       
University of Washington 
Seattle, Washington (USA)
farkas at u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas <http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/>


 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/72b36c5c/attachment-0001.htm 

From marconi2006 at googlemail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:06:02 2008
From: marconi2006 at googlemail.com (Jose de Souza)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:06:02 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
Message-ID: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>

Serg,

In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:

Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
communicate on-screen instructions?
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652

An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
instructional graphics
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/

If you can't access them, contact me directly.

Jos?.


--
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
PhD Student
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
The University of Reading
Member of the Society of Technical Communication


From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 13:41:29 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:41:29 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>

Jose,

Thanks for the response. I can't get access to those papers from campus for
whatever reason. Is there a chance that you could send me copies of the
articles?

--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html


On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Jose de Souza <marconi2006 at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Serg,
>
> In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
> of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:
>
> Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
> communicate on-screen instructions?
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
>
> http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652
>
> An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
> instructional graphics
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
> http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/
>
> If you can't access them, contact me directly.
>
> Jos?.
>
>
> --
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> PhD Student
> Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
> The University of Reading
> Member of the Society of Technical Communication
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>  infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>  http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
>  http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
>  InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080902/c47871ef/attachment.htm 

From dave at lab6.com  Tue Sep  2 13:53:18 2008
From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:53:18 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>

Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf

:-)

From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 19:04:56 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:04:56 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BD7238.9050907@she-philosopher.com>


I appear to be having problems posting to the list again.

I sent the following post late yesterday afternoon, but it never went
through, so I'm sending it again now.

My apologies for any duplicate copies distributed to the list.

Deborah


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

     "I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
     affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.

     "'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
     &c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
     Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
     complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
     the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
     'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
     Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
     several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
     that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
     Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
     Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
     containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
     &c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
     taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
     that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
     Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
     booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
     ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
     in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
     the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
     each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 20:05:15 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:05:15 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48BD805B.6080602@she-philosopher.com>

Sorry all --

Just testing to see if this post will go through (since it's a reply
to a new thread).

I've sent 2 posts to the "From abstract to concrete visual
representations" thread, the first late yesterday afternoon, and the
second, about an hour ago, but they've just disappeared into the ether.

Not sure if it's something to do with me ... or my post (and no, it's
not too long: I restrained myself ;-) ... or the thread's gone bad ...
or what.

So, we'll see what happens with this missive,
Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From mail at janeharper.com  Mon Sep  1 10:25:28 2008
From: mail at janeharper.com (jane harper)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:25:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
In-Reply-To: <6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
References: <a06200707c4e024a30638@[192.168.0.2]>
	<CA303908-D4A3-428B-ADB9-7746116C19A9@janeharper.com>
	<6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <05AFC29D-2C1C-4799-8B18-A839D24B97E1@janeharper.com>

should have read it carefully the first time! thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Aug 2008, at 21:42, "elizabeth.lomas"  
<elizabeth.lomas at unn.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think that it is the idea that each batch of water needs to be  
> kept boiling for up to two weeks before being drunk - although I had  
> to read it twice!
>
> Good example of a human error.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf  
> of jane harper
> Sent: Sun 31/08/2008 21:31
> To: Discussions about information design
> Subject: Re: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
>
>
>
> why is this seen to be funny?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 11:38, Conrad Taylor <conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My mother informs me that one of our water companies has been
>> having problems in one area with water quality, so they have
>> made an announcement to the effect that residents are advised
>> to boil any water intended for human consumption "for about
>> a fortnight".
>>
>> Could get expensive.
>>
>> Conrad
>>
>> --
>> the Conradiator: http://conradiator.wordpress.com <http://conradiator.wordpress.com/ 
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>>
>> For all Information Design matters:
>> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>>
>> Problems? Write to:
>> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
>> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 02:49:13 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:49:13 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BC8D89.4020107@she-philosopher.com>

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

	"I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
	affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.
	
	"'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
	&c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
	Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
	complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
	the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
	'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
	Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
	several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
	that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
	Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
	Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
	containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
	&c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
	taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
	that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
	Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
	booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
	ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
	in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
	the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
	each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 04:37:33 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:37:33 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
Message-ID: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm new to this listserv, but I am taking an Information Design course and
I'm really interested in finding ways that comics can be applied to this
field. Does anyone know of any sources that I can look to, to begin my
research in this area?

I'm at Clemson University and I am taking the class under Sean William (at
the Ph.D. level).

Anything that you think would help me at least begin research will be much
appreciated. I am adrift in a sea of information looking for a compass on
how these two field mix.


Serg


--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/50b3e74f/attachment-0003.htm 

From farkas at u.washington.edu  Tue Sep  2 07:56:32 2008
From: farkas at u.washington.edu (David Farkas)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:32 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>

Serg,

 

I teach information design, and I assign Scott McCloud's "I Can't Stop
Thinking #4."

http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-4/icst-4.html

 

ICST-4 shows students (if they don't already know this) that sequential art
("comics") can be used for serious exposition. (Scott McCloud's wonderful
Understanding Comics and his other books also show this.)

 

ICST-4 (along with his other online comics) also demonstrates some
interesting relationships between medium, genre, and format. When McCloud
moves from paper to the Web, he continues to work in the same genres, but
his formatting changes dramatically. Instead of being confined to little
boxes, McCloud exuberantly spreads his visuals down a very long scrolling
HTML page, and he explores the expressive possibilities of this new format.
It's also interesting that McCloud largely rejects hypertext, one of the key
behaviors available in the Web medium.

 

Dave

 

David K. Farkas, Professor         
Dept. of Technical Communication       
University of Washington 
Seattle, Washington (USA)
farkas at u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas <http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/>


 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/72b36c5c/attachment-0002.htm 

From marconi2006 at googlemail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:06:02 2008
From: marconi2006 at googlemail.com (Jose de Souza)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:06:02 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
Message-ID: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>

Serg,

In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:

Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
communicate on-screen instructions?
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652

An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
instructional graphics
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/

If you can't access them, contact me directly.

Jos?.


--
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
PhD Student
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
The University of Reading
Member of the Society of Technical Communication



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 13:41:29 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:41:29 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>

Jose,

Thanks for the response. I can't get access to those papers from campus for
whatever reason. Is there a chance that you could send me copies of the
articles?

--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html


On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Jose de Souza <marconi2006 at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Serg,
>
> In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
> of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:
>
> Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
> communicate on-screen instructions?
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
>
> http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652
>
> An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
> instructional graphics
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
> http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/
>
> If you can't access them, contact me directly.
>
> Jos?.
>
>
> --
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> PhD Student
> Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
> The University of Reading
> Member of the Society of Technical Communication
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>  infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>  http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
>  http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
>  InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080902/c47871ef/attachment-0002.htm 

From dave at lab6.com  Tue Sep  2 13:53:18 2008
From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:53:18 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>

Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf

:-)


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 19:04:56 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:04:56 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BD7238.9050907@she-philosopher.com>


I appear to be having problems posting to the list again.

I sent the following post late yesterday afternoon, but it never went
through, so I'm sending it again now.

My apologies for any duplicate copies distributed to the list.

Deborah


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

     "I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
     affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.

     "'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
     &c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
     Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
     complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
     the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
     'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
     Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
     several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
     that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
     Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
     Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
     containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
     &c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
     taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
     that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
     Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
     booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
     ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
     in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
     the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
     each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 20:05:15 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:05:15 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48BD805B.6080602@she-philosopher.com>

Sorry all --

Just testing to see if this post will go through (since it's a reply
to a new thread).

I've sent 2 posts to the "From abstract to concrete visual
representations" thread, the first late yesterday afternoon, and the
second, about an hour ago, but they've just disappeared into the ether.

Not sure if it's something to do with me ... or my post (and no, it's
not too long: I restrained myself ;-) ... or the thread's gone bad ...
or what.

So, we'll see what happens with this missive,
Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com




From mail at janeharper.com  Mon Sep  1 10:25:28 2008
From: mail at janeharper.com (jane harper)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:25:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
In-Reply-To: <6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
References: <a06200707c4e024a30638@[192.168.0.2]>
	<CA303908-D4A3-428B-ADB9-7746116C19A9@janeharper.com>
	<6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <05AFC29D-2C1C-4799-8B18-A839D24B97E1@janeharper.com>

should have read it carefully the first time! thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Aug 2008, at 21:42, "elizabeth.lomas"  
<elizabeth.lomas at unn.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think that it is the idea that each batch of water needs to be  
> kept boiling for up to two weeks before being drunk - although I had  
> to read it twice!
>
> Good example of a human error.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf  
> of jane harper
> Sent: Sun 31/08/2008 21:31
> To: Discussions about information design
> Subject: Re: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
>
>
>
> why is this seen to be funny?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 11:38, Conrad Taylor <conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My mother informs me that one of our water companies has been
>> having problems in one area with water quality, so they have
>> made an announcement to the effect that residents are advised
>> to boil any water intended for human consumption "for about
>> a fortnight".
>>
>> Could get expensive.
>>
>> Conrad
>>
>> --
>> the Conradiator: http://conradiator.wordpress.com <http://conradiator.wordpress.com/ 
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>>
>> For all Information Design matters:
>> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>>
>> Problems? Write to:
>> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
>> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 02:49:13 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:49:13 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BC8D89.4020107@she-philosopher.com>

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

	"I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
	affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.
	
	"'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
	&c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
	Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
	complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
	the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
	'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
	Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
	several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
	that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
	Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
	Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
	containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
	&c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
	taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
	that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
	Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
	booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
	ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
	in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
	the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
	each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 04:37:33 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:37:33 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
Message-ID: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm new to this listserv, but I am taking an Information Design course and
I'm really interested in finding ways that comics can be applied to this
field. Does anyone know of any sources that I can look to, to begin my
research in this area?

I'm at Clemson University and I am taking the class under Sean William (at
the Ph.D. level).

Anything that you think would help me at least begin research will be much
appreciated. I am adrift in a sea of information looking for a compass on
how these two field mix.


Serg


--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/50b3e74f/attachment-0004.htm 

From farkas at u.washington.edu  Tue Sep  2 07:56:32 2008
From: farkas at u.washington.edu (David Farkas)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:32 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>

Serg,

 

I teach information design, and I assign Scott McCloud's "I Can't Stop
Thinking #4."

http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-4/icst-4.html

 

ICST-4 shows students (if they don't already know this) that sequential art
("comics") can be used for serious exposition. (Scott McCloud's wonderful
Understanding Comics and his other books also show this.)

 

ICST-4 (along with his other online comics) also demonstrates some
interesting relationships between medium, genre, and format. When McCloud
moves from paper to the Web, he continues to work in the same genres, but
his formatting changes dramatically. Instead of being confined to little
boxes, McCloud exuberantly spreads his visuals down a very long scrolling
HTML page, and he explores the expressive possibilities of this new format.
It's also interesting that McCloud largely rejects hypertext, one of the key
behaviors available in the Web medium.

 

Dave

 

David K. Farkas, Professor         
Dept. of Technical Communication       
University of Washington 
Seattle, Washington (USA)
farkas at u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas <http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/>


 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/72b36c5c/attachment-0003.htm 

From marconi2006 at googlemail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:06:02 2008
From: marconi2006 at googlemail.com (Jose de Souza)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:06:02 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
Message-ID: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>

Serg,

In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:

Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
communicate on-screen instructions?
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652

An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
instructional graphics
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/

If you can't access them, contact me directly.

Jos?.


--
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
PhD Student
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
The University of Reading
Member of the Society of Technical Communication



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 13:41:29 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:41:29 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>

Jose,

Thanks for the response. I can't get access to those papers from campus for
whatever reason. Is there a chance that you could send me copies of the
articles?

--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html


On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Jose de Souza <marconi2006 at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Serg,
>
> In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
> of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:
>
> Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
> communicate on-screen instructions?
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
>
> http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652
>
> An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
> instructional graphics
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
> http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/
>
> If you can't access them, contact me directly.
>
> Jos?.
>
>
> --
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> PhD Student
> Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
> The University of Reading
> Member of the Society of Technical Communication
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>  infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>  http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
>  http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
>  InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080902/c47871ef/attachment-0003.htm 

From dave at lab6.com  Tue Sep  2 13:53:18 2008
From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:53:18 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>

Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf

:-)


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 19:04:56 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:04:56 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BD7238.9050907@she-philosopher.com>


I appear to be having problems posting to the list again.

I sent the following post late yesterday afternoon, but it never went
through, so I'm sending it again now.

My apologies for any duplicate copies distributed to the list.

Deborah


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

     "I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
     affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.

     "'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
     &c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
     Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
     complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
     the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
     'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
     Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
     several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
     that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
     Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
     Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
     containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
     &c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
     taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
     that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
     Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
     booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
     ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
     in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
     the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
     each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 20:05:15 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:05:15 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48BD805B.6080602@she-philosopher.com>

Sorry all --

Just testing to see if this post will go through (since it's a reply
to a new thread).

I've sent 2 posts to the "From abstract to concrete visual
representations" thread, the first late yesterday afternoon, and the
second, about an hour ago, but they've just disappeared into the ether.

Not sure if it's something to do with me ... or my post (and no, it's
not too long: I restrained myself ;-) ... or the thread's gone bad ...
or what.

So, we'll see what happens with this missive,
Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com




From mail at janeharper.com  Mon Sep  1 10:25:28 2008
From: mail at janeharper.com (jane harper)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:25:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
In-Reply-To: <6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
References: <a06200707c4e024a30638@[192.168.0.2]>
	<CA303908-D4A3-428B-ADB9-7746116C19A9@janeharper.com>
	<6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <05AFC29D-2C1C-4799-8B18-A839D24B97E1@janeharper.com>

should have read it carefully the first time! thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Aug 2008, at 21:42, "elizabeth.lomas"  
<elizabeth.lomas at unn.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think that it is the idea that each batch of water needs to be  
> kept boiling for up to two weeks before being drunk - although I had  
> to read it twice!
>
> Good example of a human error.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf  
> of jane harper
> Sent: Sun 31/08/2008 21:31
> To: Discussions about information design
> Subject: Re: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
>
>
>
> why is this seen to be funny?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 11:38, Conrad Taylor <conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My mother informs me that one of our water companies has been
>> having problems in one area with water quality, so they have
>> made an announcement to the effect that residents are advised
>> to boil any water intended for human consumption "for about
>> a fortnight".
>>
>> Could get expensive.
>>
>> Conrad
>>
>> --
>> the Conradiator: http://conradiator.wordpress.com <http://conradiator.wordpress.com/ 
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>>
>> For all Information Design matters:
>> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>>
>> Problems? Write to:
>> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
>> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 02:49:13 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:49:13 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BC8D89.4020107@she-philosopher.com>

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

	"I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
	affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.
	
	"'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
	&c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
	Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
	complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
	the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
	'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
	Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
	several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
	that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
	Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
	Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
	containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
	&c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
	taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
	that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
	Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
	booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
	ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
	in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
	the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
	each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 04:37:33 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:37:33 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
Message-ID: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm new to this listserv, but I am taking an Information Design course and
I'm really interested in finding ways that comics can be applied to this
field. Does anyone know of any sources that I can look to, to begin my
research in this area?

I'm at Clemson University and I am taking the class under Sean William (at
the Ph.D. level).

Anything that you think would help me at least begin research will be much
appreciated. I am adrift in a sea of information looking for a compass on
how these two field mix.


Serg


--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/50b3e74f/attachment-0005.htm 

From farkas at u.washington.edu  Tue Sep  2 07:56:32 2008
From: farkas at u.washington.edu (David Farkas)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:32 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>

Serg,

 

I teach information design, and I assign Scott McCloud's "I Can't Stop
Thinking #4."

http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-4/icst-4.html

 

ICST-4 shows students (if they don't already know this) that sequential art
("comics") can be used for serious exposition. (Scott McCloud's wonderful
Understanding Comics and his other books also show this.)

 

ICST-4 (along with his other online comics) also demonstrates some
interesting relationships between medium, genre, and format. When McCloud
moves from paper to the Web, he continues to work in the same genres, but
his formatting changes dramatically. Instead of being confined to little
boxes, McCloud exuberantly spreads his visuals down a very long scrolling
HTML page, and he explores the expressive possibilities of this new format.
It's also interesting that McCloud largely rejects hypertext, one of the key
behaviors available in the Web medium.

 

Dave

 

David K. Farkas, Professor         
Dept. of Technical Communication       
University of Washington 
Seattle, Washington (USA)
farkas at u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas <http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/>


 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/72b36c5c/attachment-0004.htm 

From marconi2006 at googlemail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:06:02 2008
From: marconi2006 at googlemail.com (Jose de Souza)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:06:02 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
Message-ID: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>

Serg,

In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:

Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
communicate on-screen instructions?
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652

An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
instructional graphics
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/

If you can't access them, contact me directly.

Jos?.


--
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
PhD Student
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
The University of Reading
Member of the Society of Technical Communication



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 13:41:29 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:41:29 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>

Jose,

Thanks for the response. I can't get access to those papers from campus for
whatever reason. Is there a chance that you could send me copies of the
articles?

--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html


On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Jose de Souza <marconi2006 at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Serg,
>
> In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
> of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:
>
> Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
> communicate on-screen instructions?
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
>
> http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652
>
> An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
> instructional graphics
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
> http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/
>
> If you can't access them, contact me directly.
>
> Jos?.
>
>
> --
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> PhD Student
> Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
> The University of Reading
> Member of the Society of Technical Communication
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>  infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>  http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
>  http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
>  InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080902/c47871ef/attachment-0004.htm 

From dave at lab6.com  Tue Sep  2 13:53:18 2008
From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:53:18 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>

Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf

:-)


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 19:04:56 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:04:56 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BD7238.9050907@she-philosopher.com>


I appear to be having problems posting to the list again.

I sent the following post late yesterday afternoon, but it never went
through, so I'm sending it again now.

My apologies for any duplicate copies distributed to the list.

Deborah


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

     "I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
     affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.

     "'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
     &c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
     Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
     complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
     the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
     'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
     Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
     several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
     that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
     Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
     Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
     containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
     &c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
     taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
     that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
     Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
     booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
     ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
     in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
     the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
     each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 20:05:15 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:05:15 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48BD805B.6080602@she-philosopher.com>

Sorry all --

Just testing to see if this post will go through (since it's a reply
to a new thread).

I've sent 2 posts to the "From abstract to concrete visual
representations" thread, the first late yesterday afternoon, and the
second, about an hour ago, but they've just disappeared into the ether.

Not sure if it's something to do with me ... or my post (and no, it's
not too long: I restrained myself ;-) ... or the thread's gone bad ...
or what.

So, we'll see what happens with this missive,
Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com




From mail at janeharper.com  Mon Sep  1 10:25:28 2008
From: mail at janeharper.com (jane harper)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:25:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
In-Reply-To: <6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
References: <a06200707c4e024a30638@[192.168.0.2]>
	<CA303908-D4A3-428B-ADB9-7746116C19A9@janeharper.com>
	<6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <05AFC29D-2C1C-4799-8B18-A839D24B97E1@janeharper.com>

should have read it carefully the first time! thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Aug 2008, at 21:42, "elizabeth.lomas"  
<elizabeth.lomas at unn.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think that it is the idea that each batch of water needs to be  
> kept boiling for up to two weeks before being drunk - although I had  
> to read it twice!
>
> Good example of a human error.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf  
> of jane harper
> Sent: Sun 31/08/2008 21:31
> To: Discussions about information design
> Subject: Re: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
>
>
>
> why is this seen to be funny?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 11:38, Conrad Taylor <conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My mother informs me that one of our water companies has been
>> having problems in one area with water quality, so they have
>> made an announcement to the effect that residents are advised
>> to boil any water intended for human consumption "for about
>> a fortnight".
>>
>> Could get expensive.
>>
>> Conrad
>>
>> --
>> the Conradiator: http://conradiator.wordpress.com <http://conradiator.wordpress.com/ 
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>>
>> For all Information Design matters:
>> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>>
>> Problems? Write to:
>> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
>> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 02:49:13 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:49:13 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BC8D89.4020107@she-philosopher.com>

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

	"I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
	affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.
	
	"'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
	&c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
	Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
	complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
	the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
	'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
	Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
	several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
	that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
	Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
	Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
	containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
	&c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
	taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
	that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
	Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
	booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
	ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
	in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
	the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
	each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 04:37:33 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:37:33 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
Message-ID: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm new to this listserv, but I am taking an Information Design course and
I'm really interested in finding ways that comics can be applied to this
field. Does anyone know of any sources that I can look to, to begin my
research in this area?

I'm at Clemson University and I am taking the class under Sean William (at
the Ph.D. level).

Anything that you think would help me at least begin research will be much
appreciated. I am adrift in a sea of information looking for a compass on
how these two field mix.


Serg


--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/50b3e74f/attachment-0006.htm 

From farkas at u.washington.edu  Tue Sep  2 07:56:32 2008
From: farkas at u.washington.edu (David Farkas)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:32 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>

Serg,

 

I teach information design, and I assign Scott McCloud's "I Can't Stop
Thinking #4."

http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-4/icst-4.html

 

ICST-4 shows students (if they don't already know this) that sequential art
("comics") can be used for serious exposition. (Scott McCloud's wonderful
Understanding Comics and his other books also show this.)

 

ICST-4 (along with his other online comics) also demonstrates some
interesting relationships between medium, genre, and format. When McCloud
moves from paper to the Web, he continues to work in the same genres, but
his formatting changes dramatically. Instead of being confined to little
boxes, McCloud exuberantly spreads his visuals down a very long scrolling
HTML page, and he explores the expressive possibilities of this new format.
It's also interesting that McCloud largely rejects hypertext, one of the key
behaviors available in the Web medium.

 

Dave

 

David K. Farkas, Professor         
Dept. of Technical Communication       
University of Washington 
Seattle, Washington (USA)
farkas at u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas <http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/>


 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/72b36c5c/attachment-0005.htm 

From marconi2006 at googlemail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:06:02 2008
From: marconi2006 at googlemail.com (Jose de Souza)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:06:02 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
Message-ID: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>

Serg,

In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:

Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
communicate on-screen instructions?
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652

An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
instructional graphics
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/

If you can't access them, contact me directly.

Jos?.


--
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
PhD Student
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
The University of Reading
Member of the Society of Technical Communication



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 13:41:29 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:41:29 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>

Jose,

Thanks for the response. I can't get access to those papers from campus for
whatever reason. Is there a chance that you could send me copies of the
articles?

--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html


On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Jose de Souza <marconi2006 at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Serg,
>
> In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
> of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:
>
> Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
> communicate on-screen instructions?
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
>
> http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652
>
> An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
> instructional graphics
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
> http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/
>
> If you can't access them, contact me directly.
>
> Jos?.
>
>
> --
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> PhD Student
> Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
> The University of Reading
> Member of the Society of Technical Communication
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>  infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>  http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
>  http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
>  InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080902/c47871ef/attachment-0005.htm 

From dave at lab6.com  Tue Sep  2 13:53:18 2008
From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:53:18 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>

Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf

:-)


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 19:04:56 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:04:56 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BD7238.9050907@she-philosopher.com>


I appear to be having problems posting to the list again.

I sent the following post late yesterday afternoon, but it never went
through, so I'm sending it again now.

My apologies for any duplicate copies distributed to the list.

Deborah


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

     "I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
     affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.

     "'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
     &c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
     Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
     complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
     the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
     'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
     Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
     several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
     that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
     Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
     Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
     containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
     &c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
     taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
     that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
     Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
     booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
     ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
     in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
     the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
     each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 20:05:15 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:05:15 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48BD805B.6080602@she-philosopher.com>

Sorry all --

Just testing to see if this post will go through (since it's a reply
to a new thread).

I've sent 2 posts to the "From abstract to concrete visual
representations" thread, the first late yesterday afternoon, and the
second, about an hour ago, but they've just disappeared into the ether.

Not sure if it's something to do with me ... or my post (and no, it's
not too long: I restrained myself ;-) ... or the thread's gone bad ...
or what.

So, we'll see what happens with this missive,
Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com




From digitas at panix.com  Sat Sep  6 22:31:10 2008
From: digitas at panix.com (Randal)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:31:10 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240822c4e897dc5ed3@[10.0.1.3]>

At 12:53 PM +0100 9/2/08, Dave Crossland wrote:
>Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf
>

This is also available as a webcomic at:

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

I have never been that big a fan of Scott McCloud, but this is relatively effective, and has certainly brought a lot of public attention to the idea of using comics for information graphics,

It got me to read all the way through 38 pages of information that I probably would have only skimmed if it had been in text form.

Haven't tried the browser yet, though...

-- Randal

From mail at janeharper.com  Mon Sep  1 10:25:28 2008
From: mail at janeharper.com (jane harper)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:25:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
In-Reply-To: <6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
References: <a06200707c4e024a30638@[192.168.0.2]>
	<CA303908-D4A3-428B-ADB9-7746116C19A9@janeharper.com>
	<6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <05AFC29D-2C1C-4799-8B18-A839D24B97E1@janeharper.com>

should have read it carefully the first time! thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Aug 2008, at 21:42, "elizabeth.lomas"  
<elizabeth.lomas at unn.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think that it is the idea that each batch of water needs to be  
> kept boiling for up to two weeks before being drunk - although I had  
> to read it twice!
>
> Good example of a human error.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf  
> of jane harper
> Sent: Sun 31/08/2008 21:31
> To: Discussions about information design
> Subject: Re: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
>
>
>
> why is this seen to be funny?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 11:38, Conrad Taylor <conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My mother informs me that one of our water companies has been
>> having problems in one area with water quality, so they have
>> made an announcement to the effect that residents are advised
>> to boil any water intended for human consumption "for about
>> a fortnight".
>>
>> Could get expensive.
>>
>> Conrad
>>
>> --
>> the Conradiator: http://conradiator.wordpress.com <http://conradiator.wordpress.com/ 
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>>
>> For all Information Design matters:
>> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>>
>> Problems? Write to:
>> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
>> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 02:49:13 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:49:13 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BC8D89.4020107@she-philosopher.com>

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

	"I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
	affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.
	
	"'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
	&c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
	Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
	complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
	the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
	'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
	Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
	several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
	that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
	Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
	Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
	containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
	&c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
	taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
	that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
	Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
	booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
	ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
	in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
	the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
	each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 04:37:33 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:37:33 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
Message-ID: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm new to this listserv, but I am taking an Information Design course and
I'm really interested in finding ways that comics can be applied to this
field. Does anyone know of any sources that I can look to, to begin my
research in this area?

I'm at Clemson University and I am taking the class under Sean William (at
the Ph.D. level).

Anything that you think would help me at least begin research will be much
appreciated. I am adrift in a sea of information looking for a compass on
how these two field mix.


Serg


--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/50b3e74f/attachment-0007.htm 

From farkas at u.washington.edu  Tue Sep  2 07:56:32 2008
From: farkas at u.washington.edu (David Farkas)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:32 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>

Serg,

 

I teach information design, and I assign Scott McCloud's "I Can't Stop
Thinking #4."

http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-4/icst-4.html

 

ICST-4 shows students (if they don't already know this) that sequential art
("comics") can be used for serious exposition. (Scott McCloud's wonderful
Understanding Comics and his other books also show this.)

 

ICST-4 (along with his other online comics) also demonstrates some
interesting relationships between medium, genre, and format. When McCloud
moves from paper to the Web, he continues to work in the same genres, but
his formatting changes dramatically. Instead of being confined to little
boxes, McCloud exuberantly spreads his visuals down a very long scrolling
HTML page, and he explores the expressive possibilities of this new format.
It's also interesting that McCloud largely rejects hypertext, one of the key
behaviors available in the Web medium.

 

Dave

 

David K. Farkas, Professor         
Dept. of Technical Communication       
University of Washington 
Seattle, Washington (USA)
farkas at u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas <http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/>


 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/72b36c5c/attachment-0006.htm 

From marconi2006 at googlemail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:06:02 2008
From: marconi2006 at googlemail.com (Jose de Souza)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:06:02 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
Message-ID: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>

Serg,

In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:

Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
communicate on-screen instructions?
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652

An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
instructional graphics
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/

If you can't access them, contact me directly.

Jos?.


--
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
PhD Student
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
The University of Reading
Member of the Society of Technical Communication



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 13:41:29 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:41:29 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>

Jose,

Thanks for the response. I can't get access to those papers from campus for
whatever reason. Is there a chance that you could send me copies of the
articles?

--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html


On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Jose de Souza <marconi2006 at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Serg,
>
> In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
> of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:
>
> Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
> communicate on-screen instructions?
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
>
> http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652
>
> An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
> instructional graphics
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
> http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/
>
> If you can't access them, contact me directly.
>
> Jos?.
>
>
> --
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> PhD Student
> Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
> The University of Reading
> Member of the Society of Technical Communication
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>  infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>  http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
>  http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
>  InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080902/c47871ef/attachment-0006.htm 

From dave at lab6.com  Tue Sep  2 13:53:18 2008
From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:53:18 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>

Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf

:-)


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 19:04:56 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:04:56 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BD7238.9050907@she-philosopher.com>


I appear to be having problems posting to the list again.

I sent the following post late yesterday afternoon, but it never went
through, so I'm sending it again now.

My apologies for any duplicate copies distributed to the list.

Deborah


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

     "I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
     affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.

     "'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
     &c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
     Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
     complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
     the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
     'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
     Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
     several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
     that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
     Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
     Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
     containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
     &c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
     taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
     that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
     Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
     booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
     ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
     in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
     the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
     each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 20:05:15 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:05:15 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48BD805B.6080602@she-philosopher.com>

Sorry all --

Just testing to see if this post will go through (since it's a reply
to a new thread).

I've sent 2 posts to the "From abstract to concrete visual
representations" thread, the first late yesterday afternoon, and the
second, about an hour ago, but they've just disappeared into the ether.

Not sure if it's something to do with me ... or my post (and no, it's
not too long: I restrained myself ;-) ... or the thread's gone bad ...
or what.

So, we'll see what happens with this missive,
Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com




From digitas at panix.com  Sat Sep  6 22:31:10 2008
From: digitas at panix.com (Randal)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:31:10 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240822c4e897dc5ed3@[10.0.1.3]>

At 12:53 PM +0100 9/2/08, Dave Crossland wrote:
>Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf
>

This is also available as a webcomic at:

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

I have never been that big a fan of Scott McCloud, but this is relatively effective, and has certainly brought a lot of public attention to the idea of using comics for information graphics,

It got me to read all the way through 38 pages of information that I probably would have only skimmed if it had been in text form.

Haven't tried the browser yet, though...

-- Randal


From mail at janeharper.com  Mon Sep  1 10:25:28 2008
From: mail at janeharper.com (jane harper)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:25:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
In-Reply-To: <6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
References: <a06200707c4e024a30638@[192.168.0.2]>
	<CA303908-D4A3-428B-ADB9-7746116C19A9@janeharper.com>
	<6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <05AFC29D-2C1C-4799-8B18-A839D24B97E1@janeharper.com>

should have read it carefully the first time! thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Aug 2008, at 21:42, "elizabeth.lomas"  
<elizabeth.lomas at unn.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think that it is the idea that each batch of water needs to be  
> kept boiling for up to two weeks before being drunk - although I had  
> to read it twice!
>
> Good example of a human error.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf  
> of jane harper
> Sent: Sun 31/08/2008 21:31
> To: Discussions about information design
> Subject: Re: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
>
>
>
> why is this seen to be funny?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 11:38, Conrad Taylor <conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My mother informs me that one of our water companies has been
>> having problems in one area with water quality, so they have
>> made an announcement to the effect that residents are advised
>> to boil any water intended for human consumption "for about
>> a fortnight".
>>
>> Could get expensive.
>>
>> Conrad
>>
>> --
>> the Conradiator: http://conradiator.wordpress.com <http://conradiator.wordpress.com/ 
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>>
>> For all Information Design matters:
>> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>>
>> Problems? Write to:
>> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
>> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 02:49:13 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:49:13 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BC8D89.4020107@she-philosopher.com>

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

	"I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
	affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.
	
	"'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
	&c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
	Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
	complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
	the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
	'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
	Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
	several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
	that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
	Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
	Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
	containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
	&c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
	taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
	that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
	Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
	booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
	ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
	in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
	the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
	each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 04:37:33 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:37:33 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
Message-ID: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm new to this listserv, but I am taking an Information Design course and
I'm really interested in finding ways that comics can be applied to this
field. Does anyone know of any sources that I can look to, to begin my
research in this area?

I'm at Clemson University and I am taking the class under Sean William (at
the Ph.D. level).

Anything that you think would help me at least begin research will be much
appreciated. I am adrift in a sea of information looking for a compass on
how these two field mix.


Serg


--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/50b3e74f/attachment-0008.htm 

From farkas at u.washington.edu  Tue Sep  2 07:56:32 2008
From: farkas at u.washington.edu (David Farkas)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:32 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>

Serg,

 

I teach information design, and I assign Scott McCloud's "I Can't Stop
Thinking #4."

http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-4/icst-4.html

 

ICST-4 shows students (if they don't already know this) that sequential art
("comics") can be used for serious exposition. (Scott McCloud's wonderful
Understanding Comics and his other books also show this.)

 

ICST-4 (along with his other online comics) also demonstrates some
interesting relationships between medium, genre, and format. When McCloud
moves from paper to the Web, he continues to work in the same genres, but
his formatting changes dramatically. Instead of being confined to little
boxes, McCloud exuberantly spreads his visuals down a very long scrolling
HTML page, and he explores the expressive possibilities of this new format.
It's also interesting that McCloud largely rejects hypertext, one of the key
behaviors available in the Web medium.

 

Dave

 

David K. Farkas, Professor         
Dept. of Technical Communication       
University of Washington 
Seattle, Washington (USA)
farkas at u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas <http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/>


 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/72b36c5c/attachment-0007.htm 

From marconi2006 at googlemail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:06:02 2008
From: marconi2006 at googlemail.com (Jose de Souza)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:06:02 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
Message-ID: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>

Serg,

In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:

Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
communicate on-screen instructions?
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652

An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
instructional graphics
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/

If you can't access them, contact me directly.

Jos?.


--
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
PhD Student
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
The University of Reading
Member of the Society of Technical Communication



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 13:41:29 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:41:29 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>

Jose,

Thanks for the response. I can't get access to those papers from campus for
whatever reason. Is there a chance that you could send me copies of the
articles?

--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html


On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Jose de Souza <marconi2006 at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Serg,
>
> In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
> of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:
>
> Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
> communicate on-screen instructions?
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
>
> http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652
>
> An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
> instructional graphics
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
> http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/
>
> If you can't access them, contact me directly.
>
> Jos?.
>
>
> --
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> PhD Student
> Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
> The University of Reading
> Member of the Society of Technical Communication
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>  infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>  http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
>  http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
>  InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080902/c47871ef/attachment-0007.htm 

From dave at lab6.com  Tue Sep  2 13:53:18 2008
From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:53:18 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>

Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf

:-)


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 19:04:56 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:04:56 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BD7238.9050907@she-philosopher.com>


I appear to be having problems posting to the list again.

I sent the following post late yesterday afternoon, but it never went
through, so I'm sending it again now.

My apologies for any duplicate copies distributed to the list.

Deborah


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

     "I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
     affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.

     "'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
     &c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
     Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
     complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
     the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
     'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
     Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
     several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
     that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
     Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
     Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
     containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
     &c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
     taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
     that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
     Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
     booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
     ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
     in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
     the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
     each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 20:05:15 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:05:15 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48BD805B.6080602@she-philosopher.com>

Sorry all --

Just testing to see if this post will go through (since it's a reply
to a new thread).

I've sent 2 posts to the "From abstract to concrete visual
representations" thread, the first late yesterday afternoon, and the
second, about an hour ago, but they've just disappeared into the ether.

Not sure if it's something to do with me ... or my post (and no, it's
not too long: I restrained myself ;-) ... or the thread's gone bad ...
or what.

So, we'll see what happens with this missive,
Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com




From digitas at panix.com  Sat Sep  6 22:31:10 2008
From: digitas at panix.com (Randal)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:31:10 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240822c4e897dc5ed3@[10.0.1.3]>

At 12:53 PM +0100 9/2/08, Dave Crossland wrote:
>Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf
>

This is also available as a webcomic at:

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

I have never been that big a fan of Scott McCloud, but this is relatively effective, and has certainly brought a lot of public attention to the idea of using comics for information graphics,

It got me to read all the way through 38 pages of information that I probably would have only skimmed if it had been in text form.

Haven't tried the browser yet, though...

-- Randal


From conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk  Mon Sep  8 17:28:28 2008
From: conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk (Conrad Taylor)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:28:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Slidecasting
Message-ID: <a0620072ac4eaf2ebd0c4@[192.168.0.2]>

If you haven't seen SlideShare.net, it's a free Web-based service
by Rashmi Sinha and friends where you can upload your presentations
in PowerPoint, Open Office or PDF formats and they get converted
into a Flash format which people can view by clicking on forward
and back buttons.

    http://www.slideshare.net

It also supports something the SlideShare folks call "slidecasting".
That's when you also upload an audio file and synchronise the slide
turns to the audio (like, a recording of a talk).  SlideShare doesn't
provide hosting for the audio but if you can find a place to stream
an MP3 from (they suggest The Internet Archive), you can paste the
URL into a field on SlideShare and you're away.

It's got some intriguing possibilities for remote teaching and
preaching, showing and telling.

I decided I really must have a go at slidecasting, and the perfect
opportunity came along when I was asked to prepare a talk for the
Sussex Branch of the British Computer Society, about computers
and climate change.

I've written up my experience of using SlideShare (it's impressive,
but not without some clunkiness) on my blog; here is the Permalink...

http://conradiator.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/slidesharenet-and-slidecasting

As for my experiment, you can get at it from here:

     TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/67xksy

Conrad
-- 

From mail at janeharper.com  Mon Sep  1 10:25:28 2008
From: mail at janeharper.com (jane harper)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:25:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
In-Reply-To: <6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
References: <a06200707c4e024a30638@[192.168.0.2]>
	<CA303908-D4A3-428B-ADB9-7746116C19A9@janeharper.com>
	<6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <05AFC29D-2C1C-4799-8B18-A839D24B97E1@janeharper.com>

should have read it carefully the first time! thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Aug 2008, at 21:42, "elizabeth.lomas"  
<elizabeth.lomas at unn.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think that it is the idea that each batch of water needs to be  
> kept boiling for up to two weeks before being drunk - although I had  
> to read it twice!
>
> Good example of a human error.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf  
> of jane harper
> Sent: Sun 31/08/2008 21:31
> To: Discussions about information design
> Subject: Re: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
>
>
>
> why is this seen to be funny?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 11:38, Conrad Taylor <conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My mother informs me that one of our water companies has been
>> having problems in one area with water quality, so they have
>> made an announcement to the effect that residents are advised
>> to boil any water intended for human consumption "for about
>> a fortnight".
>>
>> Could get expensive.
>>
>> Conrad
>>
>> --
>> the Conradiator: http://conradiator.wordpress.com <http://conradiator.wordpress.com/ 
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>>
>> For all Information Design matters:
>> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>>
>> Problems? Write to:
>> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
>> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 02:49:13 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:49:13 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BC8D89.4020107@she-philosopher.com>

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

	"I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
	affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.
	
	"'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
	&c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
	Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
	complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
	the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
	'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
	Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
	several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
	that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
	Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
	Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
	containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
	&c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
	taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
	that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
	Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
	booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
	ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
	in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
	the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
	each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 04:37:33 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:37:33 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
Message-ID: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm new to this listserv, but I am taking an Information Design course and
I'm really interested in finding ways that comics can be applied to this
field. Does anyone know of any sources that I can look to, to begin my
research in this area?

I'm at Clemson University and I am taking the class under Sean William (at
the Ph.D. level).

Anything that you think would help me at least begin research will be much
appreciated. I am adrift in a sea of information looking for a compass on
how these two field mix.


Serg


--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/50b3e74f/attachment-0009.htm 

From farkas at u.washington.edu  Tue Sep  2 07:56:32 2008
From: farkas at u.washington.edu (David Farkas)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:32 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>

Serg,

 

I teach information design, and I assign Scott McCloud's "I Can't Stop
Thinking #4."

http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-4/icst-4.html

 

ICST-4 shows students (if they don't already know this) that sequential art
("comics") can be used for serious exposition. (Scott McCloud's wonderful
Understanding Comics and his other books also show this.)

 

ICST-4 (along with his other online comics) also demonstrates some
interesting relationships between medium, genre, and format. When McCloud
moves from paper to the Web, he continues to work in the same genres, but
his formatting changes dramatically. Instead of being confined to little
boxes, McCloud exuberantly spreads his visuals down a very long scrolling
HTML page, and he explores the expressive possibilities of this new format.
It's also interesting that McCloud largely rejects hypertext, one of the key
behaviors available in the Web medium.

 

Dave

 

David K. Farkas, Professor         
Dept. of Technical Communication       
University of Washington 
Seattle, Washington (USA)
farkas at u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas <http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/>


 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/72b36c5c/attachment-0008.htm 

From marconi2006 at googlemail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:06:02 2008
From: marconi2006 at googlemail.com (Jose de Souza)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:06:02 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
Message-ID: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>

Serg,

In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:

Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
communicate on-screen instructions?
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652

An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
instructional graphics
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/

If you can't access them, contact me directly.

Jos?.


--
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
PhD Student
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
The University of Reading
Member of the Society of Technical Communication



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 13:41:29 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:41:29 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>

Jose,

Thanks for the response. I can't get access to those papers from campus for
whatever reason. Is there a chance that you could send me copies of the
articles?

--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html


On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Jose de Souza <marconi2006 at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Serg,
>
> In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
> of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:
>
> Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
> communicate on-screen instructions?
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
>
> http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652
>
> An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
> instructional graphics
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
> http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/
>
> If you can't access them, contact me directly.
>
> Jos?.
>
>
> --
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> PhD Student
> Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
> The University of Reading
> Member of the Society of Technical Communication
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>  infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>  http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
>  http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
>  InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080902/c47871ef/attachment-0008.htm 

From dave at lab6.com  Tue Sep  2 13:53:18 2008
From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:53:18 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>

Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf

:-)


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 19:04:56 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:04:56 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BD7238.9050907@she-philosopher.com>


I appear to be having problems posting to the list again.

I sent the following post late yesterday afternoon, but it never went
through, so I'm sending it again now.

My apologies for any duplicate copies distributed to the list.

Deborah


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

     "I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
     affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.

     "'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
     &c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
     Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
     complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
     the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
     'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
     Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
     several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
     that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
     Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
     Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
     containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
     &c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
     taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
     that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
     Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
     booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
     ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
     in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
     the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
     each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 20:05:15 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:05:15 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48BD805B.6080602@she-philosopher.com>

Sorry all --

Just testing to see if this post will go through (since it's a reply
to a new thread).

I've sent 2 posts to the "From abstract to concrete visual
representations" thread, the first late yesterday afternoon, and the
second, about an hour ago, but they've just disappeared into the ether.

Not sure if it's something to do with me ... or my post (and no, it's
not too long: I restrained myself ;-) ... or the thread's gone bad ...
or what.

So, we'll see what happens with this missive,
Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com




From digitas at panix.com  Sat Sep  6 22:31:10 2008
From: digitas at panix.com (Randal)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:31:10 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240822c4e897dc5ed3@[10.0.1.3]>

At 12:53 PM +0100 9/2/08, Dave Crossland wrote:
>Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf
>

This is also available as a webcomic at:

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

I have never been that big a fan of Scott McCloud, but this is relatively effective, and has certainly brought a lot of public attention to the idea of using comics for information graphics,

It got me to read all the way through 38 pages of information that I probably would have only skimmed if it had been in text form.

Haven't tried the browser yet, though...

-- Randal


From conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk  Mon Sep  8 17:28:28 2008
From: conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk (Conrad Taylor)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:28:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Slidecasting
Message-ID: <a0620072ac4eaf2ebd0c4@[192.168.0.2]>

If you haven't seen SlideShare.net, it's a free Web-based service
by Rashmi Sinha and friends where you can upload your presentations
in PowerPoint, Open Office or PDF formats and they get converted
into a Flash format which people can view by clicking on forward
and back buttons.

    http://www.slideshare.net

It also supports something the SlideShare folks call "slidecasting".
That's when you also upload an audio file and synchronise the slide
turns to the audio (like, a recording of a talk).  SlideShare doesn't
provide hosting for the audio but if you can find a place to stream
an MP3 from (they suggest The Internet Archive), you can paste the
URL into a field on SlideShare and you're away.

It's got some intriguing possibilities for remote teaching and
preaching, showing and telling.

I decided I really must have a go at slidecasting, and the perfect
opportunity came along when I was asked to prepare a talk for the
Sussex Branch of the British Computer Society, about computers
and climate change.

I've written up my experience of using SlideShare (it's impressive,
but not without some clunkiness) on my blog; here is the Permalink...

http://conradiator.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/slidesharenet-and-slidecasting

As for my experiment, you can get at it from here:

     TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/67xksy

Conrad
-- 


From mail at janeharper.com  Mon Sep  1 10:25:28 2008
From: mail at janeharper.com (jane harper)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:25:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
In-Reply-To: <6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
References: <a06200707c4e024a30638@[192.168.0.2]>
	<CA303908-D4A3-428B-ADB9-7746116C19A9@janeharper.com>
	<6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <05AFC29D-2C1C-4799-8B18-A839D24B97E1@janeharper.com>

should have read it carefully the first time! thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Aug 2008, at 21:42, "elizabeth.lomas"  
<elizabeth.lomas at unn.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think that it is the idea that each batch of water needs to be  
> kept boiling for up to two weeks before being drunk - although I had  
> to read it twice!
>
> Good example of a human error.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf  
> of jane harper
> Sent: Sun 31/08/2008 21:31
> To: Discussions about information design
> Subject: Re: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
>
>
>
> why is this seen to be funny?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 11:38, Conrad Taylor <conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My mother informs me that one of our water companies has been
>> having problems in one area with water quality, so they have
>> made an announcement to the effect that residents are advised
>> to boil any water intended for human consumption "for about
>> a fortnight".
>>
>> Could get expensive.
>>
>> Conrad
>>
>> --
>> the Conradiator: http://conradiator.wordpress.com <http://conradiator.wordpress.com/ 
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>>
>> For all Information Design matters:
>> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>>
>> Problems? Write to:
>> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
>> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 02:49:13 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:49:13 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BC8D89.4020107@she-philosopher.com>

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

	"I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
	affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.
	
	"'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
	&c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
	Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
	complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
	the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
	'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
	Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
	several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
	that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
	Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
	Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
	containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
	&c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
	taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
	that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
	Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
	booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
	ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
	in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
	the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
	each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 04:37:33 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:37:33 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
Message-ID: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm new to this listserv, but I am taking an Information Design course and
I'm really interested in finding ways that comics can be applied to this
field. Does anyone know of any sources that I can look to, to begin my
research in this area?

I'm at Clemson University and I am taking the class under Sean William (at
the Ph.D. level).

Anything that you think would help me at least begin research will be much
appreciated. I am adrift in a sea of information looking for a compass on
how these two field mix.


Serg


--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/50b3e74f/attachment-0010.htm 

From farkas at u.washington.edu  Tue Sep  2 07:56:32 2008
From: farkas at u.washington.edu (David Farkas)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:32 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>

Serg,

 

I teach information design, and I assign Scott McCloud's "I Can't Stop
Thinking #4."

http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-4/icst-4.html

 

ICST-4 shows students (if they don't already know this) that sequential art
("comics") can be used for serious exposition. (Scott McCloud's wonderful
Understanding Comics and his other books also show this.)

 

ICST-4 (along with his other online comics) also demonstrates some
interesting relationships between medium, genre, and format. When McCloud
moves from paper to the Web, he continues to work in the same genres, but
his formatting changes dramatically. Instead of being confined to little
boxes, McCloud exuberantly spreads his visuals down a very long scrolling
HTML page, and he explores the expressive possibilities of this new format.
It's also interesting that McCloud largely rejects hypertext, one of the key
behaviors available in the Web medium.

 

Dave

 

David K. Farkas, Professor         
Dept. of Technical Communication       
University of Washington 
Seattle, Washington (USA)
farkas at u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas <http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/>


 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/72b36c5c/attachment-0009.htm 

From marconi2006 at googlemail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:06:02 2008
From: marconi2006 at googlemail.com (Jose de Souza)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:06:02 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
Message-ID: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>

Serg,

In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:

Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
communicate on-screen instructions?
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652

An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
instructional graphics
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/

If you can't access them, contact me directly.

Jos?.


--
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
PhD Student
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
The University of Reading
Member of the Society of Technical Communication



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 13:41:29 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:41:29 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>

Jose,

Thanks for the response. I can't get access to those papers from campus for
whatever reason. Is there a chance that you could send me copies of the
articles?

--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html


On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Jose de Souza <marconi2006 at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Serg,
>
> In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
> of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:
>
> Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
> communicate on-screen instructions?
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
>
> http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652
>
> An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
> instructional graphics
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
> http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/
>
> If you can't access them, contact me directly.
>
> Jos?.
>
>
> --
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> PhD Student
> Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
> The University of Reading
> Member of the Society of Technical Communication
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>  infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>  http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
>  http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
>  InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080902/c47871ef/attachment-0009.htm 

From dave at lab6.com  Tue Sep  2 13:53:18 2008
From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:53:18 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>

Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf

:-)


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 19:04:56 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:04:56 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BD7238.9050907@she-philosopher.com>


I appear to be having problems posting to the list again.

I sent the following post late yesterday afternoon, but it never went
through, so I'm sending it again now.

My apologies for any duplicate copies distributed to the list.

Deborah


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

     "I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
     affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.

     "'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
     &c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
     Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
     complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
     the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
     'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
     Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
     several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
     that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
     Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
     Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
     containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
     &c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
     taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
     that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
     Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
     booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
     ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
     in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
     the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
     each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 20:05:15 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:05:15 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48BD805B.6080602@she-philosopher.com>

Sorry all --

Just testing to see if this post will go through (since it's a reply
to a new thread).

I've sent 2 posts to the "From abstract to concrete visual
representations" thread, the first late yesterday afternoon, and the
second, about an hour ago, but they've just disappeared into the ether.

Not sure if it's something to do with me ... or my post (and no, it's
not too long: I restrained myself ;-) ... or the thread's gone bad ...
or what.

So, we'll see what happens with this missive,
Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com




From digitas at panix.com  Sat Sep  6 22:31:10 2008
From: digitas at panix.com (Randal)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:31:10 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240822c4e897dc5ed3@[10.0.1.3]>

At 12:53 PM +0100 9/2/08, Dave Crossland wrote:
>Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf
>

This is also available as a webcomic at:

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

I have never been that big a fan of Scott McCloud, but this is relatively effective, and has certainly brought a lot of public attention to the idea of using comics for information graphics,

It got me to read all the way through 38 pages of information that I probably would have only skimmed if it had been in text form.

Haven't tried the browser yet, though...

-- Randal


From conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk  Mon Sep  8 17:28:28 2008
From: conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk (Conrad Taylor)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:28:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Slidecasting
Message-ID: <a0620072ac4eaf2ebd0c4@[192.168.0.2]>

If you haven't seen SlideShare.net, it's a free Web-based service
by Rashmi Sinha and friends where you can upload your presentations
in PowerPoint, Open Office or PDF formats and they get converted
into a Flash format which people can view by clicking on forward
and back buttons.

    http://www.slideshare.net

It also supports something the SlideShare folks call "slidecasting".
That's when you also upload an audio file and synchronise the slide
turns to the audio (like, a recording of a talk).  SlideShare doesn't
provide hosting for the audio but if you can find a place to stream
an MP3 from (they suggest The Internet Archive), you can paste the
URL into a field on SlideShare and you're away.

It's got some intriguing possibilities for remote teaching and
preaching, showing and telling.

I decided I really must have a go at slidecasting, and the perfect
opportunity came along when I was asked to prepare a talk for the
Sussex Branch of the British Computer Society, about computers
and climate change.

I've written up my experience of using SlideShare (it's impressive,
but not without some clunkiness) on my blog; here is the Permalink...

http://conradiator.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/slidesharenet-and-slidecasting

As for my experiment, you can get at it from here:

     TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/67xksy

Conrad
-- 


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Wed Sep 10 21:47:17 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:47:17 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Slidecasting
In-Reply-To: <a0620072ac4eaf2ebd0c4@[192.168.0.2]>
References: <a0620072ac4eaf2ebd0c4@[192.168.0.2]>
Message-ID: <48C82445.1030408@she-philosopher.com>


> If you haven't seen
> SlideShare.net, it's a free
> Web-based service by Rashmi
> Sinha and friends where you
> can upload your presentations
> in PowerPoint, Open Office or
> PDF formats and they get
> converted into a Flash format
> which people can view by
> clicking on forward and back
> buttons.
>
>    http://www.slideshare.net

Thanks for this, Conrad.

I've only had time for a quick look thus far, but wanted to report
back that I found, almost immediately, an interesting variant on Scott
McCloud's The Big Triangle. <vbg>

The image is from Peter Murray's opening session at Medicine 2.0, Sept
2008 ... where I happily discovered that others besides me are
thinking about how we apply the Web 2.0 social networking model to
medical communications.

Try

http://www.slideshare.net/drpeter/medicine20-opening-murray-presentation

and take a look at slide 11 of 13.

It features a Big Triangle -- with a center donut, and lots of labeled
data points -- summarizing the author's vision of "next generation
medicine" = Medicine 2.0/3.0.

And yes, it sorta makes sense to me ... if only I knew what
"Apomediation" meant! ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From mail at janeharper.com  Mon Sep  1 10:25:28 2008
From: mail at janeharper.com (jane harper)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:25:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
In-Reply-To: <6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
References: <a06200707c4e024a30638@[192.168.0.2]>
	<CA303908-D4A3-428B-ADB9-7746116C19A9@janeharper.com>
	<6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <05AFC29D-2C1C-4799-8B18-A839D24B97E1@janeharper.com>

should have read it carefully the first time! thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Aug 2008, at 21:42, "elizabeth.lomas"  
<elizabeth.lomas at unn.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think that it is the idea that each batch of water needs to be  
> kept boiling for up to two weeks before being drunk - although I had  
> to read it twice!
>
> Good example of a human error.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf  
> of jane harper
> Sent: Sun 31/08/2008 21:31
> To: Discussions about information design
> Subject: Re: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
>
>
>
> why is this seen to be funny?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 11:38, Conrad Taylor <conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My mother informs me that one of our water companies has been
>> having problems in one area with water quality, so they have
>> made an announcement to the effect that residents are advised
>> to boil any water intended for human consumption "for about
>> a fortnight".
>>
>> Could get expensive.
>>
>> Conrad
>>
>> --
>> the Conradiator: http://conradiator.wordpress.com <http://conradiator.wordpress.com/ 
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>>
>> For all Information Design matters:
>> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>>
>> Problems? Write to:
>> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
>> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 02:49:13 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:49:13 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BC8D89.4020107@she-philosopher.com>

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

	"I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
	affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.
	
	"'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
	&c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
	Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
	complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
	the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
	'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
	Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
	several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
	that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
	Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
	Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
	containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
	&c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
	taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
	that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
	Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
	booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
	ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
	in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
	the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
	each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 04:37:33 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:37:33 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
Message-ID: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm new to this listserv, but I am taking an Information Design course and
I'm really interested in finding ways that comics can be applied to this
field. Does anyone know of any sources that I can look to, to begin my
research in this area?

I'm at Clemson University and I am taking the class under Sean William (at
the Ph.D. level).

Anything that you think would help me at least begin research will be much
appreciated. I am adrift in a sea of information looking for a compass on
how these two field mix.


Serg


--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/50b3e74f/attachment-0011.htm 

From farkas at u.washington.edu  Tue Sep  2 07:56:32 2008
From: farkas at u.washington.edu (David Farkas)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:32 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>

Serg,

 

I teach information design, and I assign Scott McCloud's "I Can't Stop
Thinking #4."

http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-4/icst-4.html

 

ICST-4 shows students (if they don't already know this) that sequential art
("comics") can be used for serious exposition. (Scott McCloud's wonderful
Understanding Comics and his other books also show this.)

 

ICST-4 (along with his other online comics) also demonstrates some
interesting relationships between medium, genre, and format. When McCloud
moves from paper to the Web, he continues to work in the same genres, but
his formatting changes dramatically. Instead of being confined to little
boxes, McCloud exuberantly spreads his visuals down a very long scrolling
HTML page, and he explores the expressive possibilities of this new format.
It's also interesting that McCloud largely rejects hypertext, one of the key
behaviors available in the Web medium.

 

Dave

 

David K. Farkas, Professor         
Dept. of Technical Communication       
University of Washington 
Seattle, Washington (USA)
farkas at u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas <http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/>


 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/72b36c5c/attachment-0010.htm 

From marconi2006 at googlemail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:06:02 2008
From: marconi2006 at googlemail.com (Jose de Souza)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:06:02 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
Message-ID: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>

Serg,

In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:

Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
communicate on-screen instructions?
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652

An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
instructional graphics
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/

If you can't access them, contact me directly.

Jos?.


--
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
PhD Student
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
The University of Reading
Member of the Society of Technical Communication



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 13:41:29 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:41:29 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>

Jose,

Thanks for the response. I can't get access to those papers from campus for
whatever reason. Is there a chance that you could send me copies of the
articles?

--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html


On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Jose de Souza <marconi2006 at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Serg,
>
> In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
> of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:
>
> Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
> communicate on-screen instructions?
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
>
> http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652
>
> An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
> instructional graphics
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
> http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/
>
> If you can't access them, contact me directly.
>
> Jos?.
>
>
> --
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> PhD Student
> Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
> The University of Reading
> Member of the Society of Technical Communication
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>  infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>  http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
>  http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
>  InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080902/c47871ef/attachment-0010.htm 

From dave at lab6.com  Tue Sep  2 13:53:18 2008
From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:53:18 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>

Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf

:-)


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 19:04:56 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:04:56 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BD7238.9050907@she-philosopher.com>


I appear to be having problems posting to the list again.

I sent the following post late yesterday afternoon, but it never went
through, so I'm sending it again now.

My apologies for any duplicate copies distributed to the list.

Deborah


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

     "I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
     affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.

     "'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
     &c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
     Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
     complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
     the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
     'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
     Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
     several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
     that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
     Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
     Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
     containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
     &c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
     taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
     that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
     Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
     booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
     ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
     in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
     the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
     each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 20:05:15 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:05:15 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48BD805B.6080602@she-philosopher.com>

Sorry all --

Just testing to see if this post will go through (since it's a reply
to a new thread).

I've sent 2 posts to the "From abstract to concrete visual
representations" thread, the first late yesterday afternoon, and the
second, about an hour ago, but they've just disappeared into the ether.

Not sure if it's something to do with me ... or my post (and no, it's
not too long: I restrained myself ;-) ... or the thread's gone bad ...
or what.

So, we'll see what happens with this missive,
Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com




From digitas at panix.com  Sat Sep  6 22:31:10 2008
From: digitas at panix.com (Randal)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:31:10 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240822c4e897dc5ed3@[10.0.1.3]>

At 12:53 PM +0100 9/2/08, Dave Crossland wrote:
>Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf
>

This is also available as a webcomic at:

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

I have never been that big a fan of Scott McCloud, but this is relatively effective, and has certainly brought a lot of public attention to the idea of using comics for information graphics,

It got me to read all the way through 38 pages of information that I probably would have only skimmed if it had been in text form.

Haven't tried the browser yet, though...

-- Randal


From conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk  Mon Sep  8 17:28:28 2008
From: conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk (Conrad Taylor)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:28:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Slidecasting
Message-ID: <a0620072ac4eaf2ebd0c4@[192.168.0.2]>

If you haven't seen SlideShare.net, it's a free Web-based service
by Rashmi Sinha and friends where you can upload your presentations
in PowerPoint, Open Office or PDF formats and they get converted
into a Flash format which people can view by clicking on forward
and back buttons.

    http://www.slideshare.net

It also supports something the SlideShare folks call "slidecasting".
That's when you also upload an audio file and synchronise the slide
turns to the audio (like, a recording of a talk).  SlideShare doesn't
provide hosting for the audio but if you can find a place to stream
an MP3 from (they suggest The Internet Archive), you can paste the
URL into a field on SlideShare and you're away.

It's got some intriguing possibilities for remote teaching and
preaching, showing and telling.

I decided I really must have a go at slidecasting, and the perfect
opportunity came along when I was asked to prepare a talk for the
Sussex Branch of the British Computer Society, about computers
and climate change.

I've written up my experience of using SlideShare (it's impressive,
but not without some clunkiness) on my blog; here is the Permalink...

http://conradiator.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/slidesharenet-and-slidecasting

As for my experiment, you can get at it from here:

     TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/67xksy

Conrad
-- 


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Wed Sep 10 21:47:17 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:47:17 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Slidecasting
In-Reply-To: <a0620072ac4eaf2ebd0c4@[192.168.0.2]>
References: <a0620072ac4eaf2ebd0c4@[192.168.0.2]>
Message-ID: <48C82445.1030408@she-philosopher.com>


> If you haven't seen
> SlideShare.net, it's a free
> Web-based service by Rashmi
> Sinha and friends where you
> can upload your presentations
> in PowerPoint, Open Office or
> PDF formats and they get
> converted into a Flash format
> which people can view by
> clicking on forward and back
> buttons.
>
>    http://www.slideshare.net

Thanks for this, Conrad.

I've only had time for a quick look thus far, but wanted to report
back that I found, almost immediately, an interesting variant on Scott
McCloud's The Big Triangle. <vbg>

The image is from Peter Murray's opening session at Medicine 2.0, Sept
2008 ... where I happily discovered that others besides me are
thinking about how we apply the Web 2.0 social networking model to
medical communications.

Try

http://www.slideshare.net/drpeter/medicine20-opening-murray-presentation

and take a look at slide 11 of 13.

It features a Big Triangle -- with a center donut, and lots of labeled
data points -- summarizing the author's vision of "next generation
medicine" = Medicine 2.0/3.0.

And yes, it sorta makes sense to me ... if only I knew what
"Apomediation" meant! ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com




From mail at janeharper.com  Mon Sep  1 10:25:28 2008
From: mail at janeharper.com (jane harper)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:25:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
In-Reply-To: <6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
References: <a06200707c4e024a30638@[192.168.0.2]>
	<CA303908-D4A3-428B-ADB9-7746116C19A9@janeharper.com>
	<6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <05AFC29D-2C1C-4799-8B18-A839D24B97E1@janeharper.com>

should have read it carefully the first time! thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Aug 2008, at 21:42, "elizabeth.lomas"  
<elizabeth.lomas at unn.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think that it is the idea that each batch of water needs to be  
> kept boiling for up to two weeks before being drunk - although I had  
> to read it twice!
>
> Good example of a human error.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf  
> of jane harper
> Sent: Sun 31/08/2008 21:31
> To: Discussions about information design
> Subject: Re: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
>
>
>
> why is this seen to be funny?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 11:38, Conrad Taylor <conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My mother informs me that one of our water companies has been
>> having problems in one area with water quality, so they have
>> made an announcement to the effect that residents are advised
>> to boil any water intended for human consumption "for about
>> a fortnight".
>>
>> Could get expensive.
>>
>> Conrad
>>
>> --
>> the Conradiator: http://conradiator.wordpress.com <http://conradiator.wordpress.com/ 
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>>
>> For all Information Design matters:
>> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>>
>> Problems? Write to:
>> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
>> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 02:49:13 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:49:13 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BC8D89.4020107@she-philosopher.com>

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

	"I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
	affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.
	
	"'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
	&c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
	Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
	complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
	the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
	'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
	Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
	several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
	that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
	Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
	Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
	containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
	&c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
	taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
	that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
	Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
	booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
	ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
	in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
	the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
	each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 04:37:33 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:37:33 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
Message-ID: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm new to this listserv, but I am taking an Information Design course and
I'm really interested in finding ways that comics can be applied to this
field. Does anyone know of any sources that I can look to, to begin my
research in this area?

I'm at Clemson University and I am taking the class under Sean William (at
the Ph.D. level).

Anything that you think would help me at least begin research will be much
appreciated. I am adrift in a sea of information looking for a compass on
how these two field mix.


Serg


--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/50b3e74f/attachment-0012.htm 

From farkas at u.washington.edu  Tue Sep  2 07:56:32 2008
From: farkas at u.washington.edu (David Farkas)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:56:32 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>

Serg,

 

I teach information design, and I assign Scott McCloud's "I Can't Stop
Thinking #4."

http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-4/icst-4.html

 

ICST-4 shows students (if they don't already know this) that sequential art
("comics") can be used for serious exposition. (Scott McCloud's wonderful
Understanding Comics and his other books also show this.)

 

ICST-4 (along with his other online comics) also demonstrates some
interesting relationships between medium, genre, and format. When McCloud
moves from paper to the Web, he continues to work in the same genres, but
his formatting changes dramatically. Instead of being confined to little
boxes, McCloud exuberantly spreads his visuals down a very long scrolling
HTML page, and he explores the expressive possibilities of this new format.
It's also interesting that McCloud largely rejects hypertext, one of the key
behaviors available in the Web medium.

 

Dave

 

David K. Farkas, Professor         
Dept. of Technical Communication       
University of Washington 
Seattle, Washington (USA)
farkas at u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas <http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/>


 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080901/72b36c5c/attachment-0011.htm 

From marconi2006 at googlemail.com  Tue Sep  2 09:06:02 2008
From: marconi2006 at googlemail.com (Jose de Souza)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:06:02 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
Message-ID: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>

Serg,

In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:

Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
communicate on-screen instructions?
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652

An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
instructional graphics
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Mary Dyson
http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/

If you can't access them, contact me directly.

Jos?.


--
Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
PhD Student
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
The University of Reading
Member of the Society of Technical Communication



From revfigueiredo at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 13:41:29 2008
From: revfigueiredo at gmail.com (Sergio Figueiredo)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:41:29 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>

Jose,

Thanks for the response. I can't get access to those papers from campus for
whatever reason. Is there a chance that you could send me copies of the
articles?

--
Sergio Figueiredo, Ph.D. Student
Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design (RCID)
Clemson University
302 Daniel Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
sergiof at clemson.edu
(609) 980-3602
http://people.clemson.edu/~sergiof/index.html


On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Jose de Souza <marconi2006 at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Serg,
>
> In a very brief way, I have explored in two articles the application
> of some McCloud's ideas to the design of visual instructions:
>
> Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to
> communicate on-screen instructions?
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
>
> http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_articles.cgi?bookid=IDJ%2016%3A2&artid=230117652
>
> An illustrated review of how motion is represented in static
> instructional graphics
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> Mary Dyson
> http://www.stc.org/edu/55thConf/
>
> If you can't access them, contact me directly.
>
> Jos?.
>
>
> --
> Jos? Marconi Bezerra de Souza
> PhD Student
> Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
> The University of Reading
> Member of the Society of Technical Communication
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>  infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>  http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
>  http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
>  InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080902/c47871ef/attachment-0011.htm 

From dave at lab6.com  Tue Sep  2 13:53:18 2008
From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:53:18 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>

Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf

:-)


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 19:04:56 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:04:56 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BD7238.9050907@she-philosopher.com>


I appear to be having problems posting to the list again.

I sent the following post late yesterday afternoon, but it never went
through, so I'm sending it again now.

My apologies for any duplicate copies distributed to the list.

Deborah


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the Big Triangle, I can't.

I don't know whether this is because I'm incapable of making the
stylistic and aesthetic evaluations that classification by "style of
visual representation" requires ... or if it's because McCloud's
taxonomy really isn't applicable to the kinds of representations I
work with ... or perhaps a little both/and? ... but whatever the
reason(s), The Big Triangle doesn't reveal new patterns of the sort
that produce any hopeful "Ah hah!" moments for me.

As I see it, you can't leave the metaphysics out of early-modern
styles of visual representation any more than one can leave this out
of stylistic analyses of the poetry of John Donne, one of the
so-called "metaphysical poets."

Both are examples of a sort of cerebral (in some cases, mystical)
style of representing that aesthetes in the next century, e.g., Horace
Walpole, abhorred. (FWIW, I sometimes think C18 rebellions against the
Baroque had a lot more to do with differing aesthetic "tastes" than
with any supposed rationalist triumphs of "the Enlightenment" and Whig
politics. ;-)

IMO, Baroque iconography simply cannot be explained without some sort
of unified theory of representation that allows for varying degrees of
allegory/symbolism, and I can't figure out how that fits with The Big
Triangle.

*This* is why I keep going to the right (and not because of the
location of text/narrative on the right side of the dotted partition).
It's because that's where the point labeled "Meaning" resides.

I suppose I could try going up within the triangle, but I understand
that trajectory even less than I do a simple movement from left to
right along "The Representational Edge". In heading upward, we move
*away* from "The Representational Edge" ... yet C17 symbolic
representations of the ineffable (and/or spiritual self) are still
very much representations -- perhaps even the ultimate in iconicity
(i.e., equivalent of McCloud's most geometric face, No. 99?)....

I expect some of my interpretive difficulties are due to the
triangular shape itself, since the pyramid/triangle is a Baroque icon
(with divinity at the apex, or sometimes the center), and I'm really
used to viewing & interpreting it this way. But this visual conceit
doesn't map easily onto McCloud's Big Triangle, so I experience added
dissonance because of it.

But the real problem, I suspect, has to do with my visual illiteracy.
Those of you who are good visual thinkers sometimes forget, I think,
just how much those of us who are not end up struggling with this sort
of thing. And I'm talking *basics* here: such as the meaning of
different spatial arrangements of information within a triangle.

I'm not sure how I explain the real limitations on my visual literacy,
except to say that triangles (let alone 3D pyramids) are definitely
pushing it!

You have to realize that I can barely comprehend Venn diagrams.

I consider it a major achievement that I actually enjoy "reading"
Jessica Hagy's texts (see

< http://indexed.blogspot.com/ >

for examples).

Plus, I am probably more literal-minded when I look at diagrams than
many designers realize.

E.g., I take labels and boundaries at face value, and seldom try to
imagine beyond them, and when I do, I usually just get confused.

For instance, Yuri recently showed me Otto Neurath's (well-known?)
diagram of "Births and Deaths in Germany" from 1911 to 1926. According
to Yuri it's a "comprehensible" and emotive piece, but I still don't
get it....

First, I had to figure out that the "red signs" were actually babies,
and the "black signs," coffins, which I thought was a clever
representation -- so far, so good -- but then I got hung up on the
placement of the black signs in relation to the red signs, because
of a bold black vertical boundary line, which separates the diagram
into 2 columns ... but then I notice that there are 2 black signs to
its left in the column where the dates are (i.e., out of alignment).

To me, this kind of cognitive dissonance is not educational; it's
confusing. The asymmetric (if that's the right word) layout actually
distracts me from the message, and I default to resolving matters in
the easiest way possible: ignore the 2 black signs which are out of
position (introducing the dissonance), and fixate instead on the
right side of the diagram, where everything lines up, more or less
(because there is a mix of left and right justification, which I
resolved by [mis?]interpreting as some kind of artistic touch, ergo
acceptable).

Thus, my visual field actually adjusts to notice only those parts of
the diagram that make sense to me.

And it's this that I take in and remember -- my badly-done partial
representation (sense-making) of the original diagram.

If I can't even process such a basic diagram, imagine what trouble I'm
going to have making sense of 3!+ planes of spatial relationships, as
we get with McCloud's Big Triangle (really 2 triangles-in-one ;-).

I doubt most folks are as bad as I am at processing diagrammatic
information (information designers better hope not!), and I'm not
suggesting that such clever and creative artist-designers as Scott
McCloud should start catering to the lowest common denominator among
visual illiterates.

But I do think my difficulties processing certain types of visual
information suggest that while the latest brain research may prove
without question that humans are first and foremost visual beings,
we're none of us born sophisticated visual thinkers.

This is definitely learned behavior.


>> "The Picture Plane" muddies
>> even more when we restrict
>> the representational images
>> plotted thereon to early-
>> modern portrait prints &
>> engravings (vs. painted
>> portraits).
>
> I'm not sure I follow what
> you're saying. The
> distinction he made is only
> about representational
> images of humans.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes
to visual "styles," so I default to thinking of this in terms of
technologies, in which case it seems to me that prints/engravings,
which are built around the line, "represent" the human form somewhat
differently than, say, oil paintings ... and even these kinds of
half-baked distinctions blur when you consider mezzotint and stipple
(and probably other techniques with which I am not familiar, too)....

The issue I raised above about allegory is also complicated by the
fact that a multitude of representational styles sometimes co-exist in
a single print. For instance, the frontispiece to a textbook of
iatrochemistry in the early 18th century combines the engraved
portrait of the author (Nicolas L?mery) with a range of realistic
human figures symbolizing both the abstract subject matter and its
material practice in a visual mix that defies simple categorization; see

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Lemery1720_fp.jpg (933KB)

(which I'll leave here for list members to access while we continue
this discussion). FYI, this unsigned image is the frontispiece to the
4th edition of the English translation of L?mery's _A Course of
Chemistry_ (London, 1720), from the revised 11th edition of the French.

These same sorts of representational issues surface, with added gender
complications, in the frontispiece to the C18 physics textbook written
by Gabrielle ?milie le Tonnelier de Breteuil du Ch?telet (aka Marquise
du Ch?telet, and ?milie du Ch?telet). Ch?telet (who would later
publish a 600-page French translation of Newton's _Principia
Mathematica_ in 1756) intended this frontispiece to complement her
rhetorical strategy in the _Institutions de Physique_ (Paris, 1740)
and help establish her scientific reputation. Here she depicts herself
(and her female readers, as well?) as the upwardly-striving Woman of
Science, "mounting to the temple of naked Truth, through the clouds"
(in turn evoking the figure of Fortune who balances on sphere and
cube), with female personifications of 5 sciences (Botany, Astronomy,
Physics, Medicine, Chemistry) resting below on *terra firma*, and
portraits of Descartes, Newton, and Copernicus fixed by cherubs in the
illustration's frame:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/Chatelet1740_fp.jpg (802KB)

What do we do with so many layers of representation? Can you place
this image on the grid given in The Big Triangle?

Then, too, there're problems with assigning a single "style" to
specific graphic artists of the early modern period because of the
anonymity of so many prints, not to mention the many cases of all-out
plagiarism (and the frequency with which various signature heads are
placed on the same generic bodies), plus the fact that engravers &
etchers were not always "true" to the original drawings to begin with.

With Baroque prints, we get added levels of mediation to sort through,
making it really difficult at times to even know to whom we attribute
what.

And then there are the cases of spurious representation. Where would
these fit on The Big Triangle?

I'm thinking here of what happened to Hannah Wolley (aka Woolley), who
produced several books dealing with domestic science in the latter
half of C17. Her 1st title, _The Ladies Directory_, was published in
1661 at her own expense, and was immediately successful. It was
reprinted, and followed by new Wolley titles in 1664, 1670, 1672, and
1674, all of which were reprinted as well, earning Wolley a fair
amount of consulting work and an international reputation (e.g., at
least 2 editions of the 1670 title were issued in German translation
as _Frauenzimmers Zeitvertreib_).

Hoping to capitalize on Wolley's success (and steal some of her market
share ;-), some enterprising booksellers quickly brought out 3 copycat
titles, all published anonymously, but designed with enough of the
look-and-feel of Wolley's legitimate texts to be attributed to Wolley
by contemporary readers (and many subsequent scholars, too), even
though the texts were compiled/written by men.

One of the ways this worked was to add a frontispiece portrait of a
woman (in the exact position where the author's portrait usually
appeared), and a title page engraving (similar to the one in Wolley's
legitimate texts) with vignettes showing women completing some of the
tasks described in the rest of the book. (An autobiography of the
putative woman author was also included, but since this is a spurious
prose representation, it's not really relevant to our discussion,
although it is an important piece of the representational context for
the added portrait.)

The portrait engraving of Wolley was never captioned, and indeed
varied considerably (especially her face and hair) from title to
title, and reprint to reprint. Significantly, none of Wolley's
legitimate texts include a portrait of her (or the autobiography). But
some of the uncaptioned portrait prints were signed by William
Faithorne (c.1616-1691), one of England's most accomplished and
reputable engravers at the time, and I'm sure this added to the
credibility of the representation.

Wolley's changeling identity (including at least 5 different spellings
of her name) has confused readers ever since. Modern readers
unfamiliar with the unscrupulous publishing practices of C17
stationers (booksellers and printsellers) -- and steeped in the visual
culture of modern photographic realism -- are probably the most gullible.

It wasn't always so. In his _Biographical History of England from
Egbert the Great to the Revolution_ (a 3-volume prose catalog of
engraved historical portraits, 1st published in 1769), James Granger
wrote the following about Faithorne's portrait engraving of Wolley:

     "I have seen the same head, with the name of Mrs. Gilly
     affixed to it: and I think it was a better impression.

     "'The Queen's Closet opened,' a book of receipts on Cookery,
     &c. had not long been published, when there came forth 'The
     Queen-like Closet,' which was pretended to be much more
     complete than the former. Mrs. Woolley wrote 'A Supplement to
     the Queen-like Closet; or a little of every Thing.' Her
     'Ladies Delight, or a rich Closet of Experiments and
     Curiosities, containing the Art of Preserving,' &c. has been
     several times printed. It appears from Clavel's Catalogue,
     that this was published about the same time with 'Digby's
     Closet opened.' Mrs. Woolley was also author of 'The
     Gentlewoman's Companion, or a Guide to the Female Sex;
     containing Directions of Behaviour in all Places, Companies,'
     &c. This was reprinted in 1674. The above account, which is
     taken from Clavel, may be true: but it is not very improbable
     that neither the portrait nor the books belonged to Mrs.
     Woolley; and such as are acquainted with the frauds of modern
     booksellers might be inclined to think that no such person
     ever existed.--I have heard an old lady, who was very learned
     in cookery and its appendant branches of science, say, that
     the authors who wrote on these subjects generally stole from
     each other."

Here, Granger extrapolates from the (mis)representations of the
portrait engraving that even the real Hannah Wolley was a fiction of
the booksellers.

Can we possibly muddy the issue of representational images of
humans much more than that? ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com



From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 20:05:15 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:05:15 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48BD805B.6080602@she-philosopher.com>

Sorry all --

Just testing to see if this post will go through (since it's a reply
to a new thread).

I've sent 2 posts to the "From abstract to concrete visual
representations" thread, the first late yesterday afternoon, and the
second, about an hour ago, but they've just disappeared into the ether.

Not sure if it's something to do with me ... or my post (and no, it's
not too long: I restrained myself ;-) ... or the thread's gone bad ...
or what.

So, we'll see what happens with this missive,
Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com




From digitas at panix.com  Sat Sep  6 22:31:10 2008
From: digitas at panix.com (Randal)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:31:10 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Comics and Info Design
In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56d13c270809011937u2b8317b4oaca25353dcc4d6e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c90cc0$a6f2bd70$f4d83850$@washington.edu>
	<d14a175a0809020006qe0c993dl197f4369fd0cc53@mail.gmail.com>
	<56d13c270809020441q5fff0465p73818e19f7256731@mail.gmail.com>
	<2285a9d20809020453ge1c26cbm6fa064d1d5526423@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p06240822c4e897dc5ed3@[10.0.1.3]>

At 12:53 PM +0100 9/2/08, Dave Crossland wrote:
>Slightly OT, but Scott McCloud is in the web tech news this week:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=google+chrome+comic+pdf
>

This is also available as a webcomic at:

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/

I have never been that big a fan of Scott McCloud, but this is relatively effective, and has certainly brought a lot of public attention to the idea of using comics for information graphics,

It got me to read all the way through 38 pages of information that I probably would have only skimmed if it had been in text form.

Haven't tried the browser yet, though...

-- Randal


From conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk  Mon Sep  8 17:28:28 2008
From: conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk (Conrad Taylor)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:28:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Slidecasting
Message-ID: <a0620072ac4eaf2ebd0c4@[192.168.0.2]>

If you haven't seen SlideShare.net, it's a free Web-based service
by Rashmi Sinha and friends where you can upload your presentations
in PowerPoint, Open Office or PDF formats and they get converted
into a Flash format which people can view by clicking on forward
and back buttons.

    http://www.slideshare.net

It also supports something the SlideShare folks call "slidecasting".
That's when you also upload an audio file and synchronise the slide
turns to the audio (like, a recording of a talk).  SlideShare doesn't
provide hosting for the audio but if you can find a place to stream
an MP3 from (they suggest The Internet Archive), you can paste the
URL into a field on SlideShare and you're away.

It's got some intriguing possibilities for remote teaching and
preaching, showing and telling.

I decided I really must have a go at slidecasting, and the perfect
opportunity came along when I was asked to prepare a talk for the
Sussex Branch of the British Computer Society, about computers
and climate change.

I've written up my experience of using SlideShare (it's impressive,
but not without some clunkiness) on my blog; here is the Permalink...

http://conradiator.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/slidesharenet-and-slidecasting

As for my experiment, you can get at it from here:

     TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/67xksy

Conrad
-- 


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Wed Sep 10 21:47:17 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:47:17 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Slidecasting
In-Reply-To: <a0620072ac4eaf2ebd0c4@[192.168.0.2]>
References: <a0620072ac4eaf2ebd0c4@[192.168.0.2]>
Message-ID: <48C82445.1030408@she-philosopher.com>


> If you haven't seen
> SlideShare.net, it's a free
> Web-based service by Rashmi
> Sinha and friends where you
> can upload your presentations
> in PowerPoint, Open Office or
> PDF formats and they get
> converted into a Flash format
> which people can view by
> clicking on forward and back
> buttons.
>
>    http://www.slideshare.net

Thanks for this, Conrad.

I've only had time for a quick look thus far, but wanted to report
back that I found, almost immediately, an interesting variant on Scott
McCloud's The Big Triangle. <vbg>

The image is from Peter Murray's opening session at Medicine 2.0, Sept
2008 ... where I happily discovered that others besides me are
thinking about how we apply the Web 2.0 social networking model to
medical communications.

Try

http://www.slideshare.net/drpeter/medicine20-opening-murray-presentation

and take a look at slide 11 of 13.

It features a Big Triangle -- with a center donut, and lots of labeled
data points -- summarizing the author's vision of "next generation
medicine" = Medicine 2.0/3.0.

And yes, it sorta makes sense to me ... if only I knew what
"Apomediation" meant! ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
dtp at she-philosopher.com




From teather at compuserve.com  Fri Sep 12 13:13:27 2008
From: teather at compuserve.com (Jane Teather)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:13:27 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: BMJ article
Message-ID: <48CA4ED7.6030403@compuserve.com>

Today?s /British Medical Journal (BMJ)/ contains a report of research on 
a dangerously misleading product label.

I think the online mag is subscription-only, so this link may not work: 
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/sep09_2/a1379

So here is a summary:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Laos a popular coffee creamer is marketed with an illustration of a 
mother bear holding a baby bear in the breastfeeding position. The first 
listed ingredient is sugar and it contains 3.6% of calories as protein 
and 27.3% as fat. For infant formulas the recommended content is 
7.2-12.0% protein and 40-54% fat. The coffee creamer is sold in many 
rural roadside shops. The company uses the same Bear Brand logo on its 
canned sterilised cows? milk product and on infant formula products for 
infants from 6 months. A warning on the can states "This product is not 
to be used as breast milk substitute" in English, Thai, and Lao. There 
is also an illustration of a feeding bottle with a cross through it.

*Results of research:* Of 26 paediatricians surveyed, 24 said that 
parents "often" or "sometimes" fed this product to infants as a 
substitute for breast milk. In the capital city, paediatricians said 
that mothers used the product when they returned to work. In the 
countryside, they reported that poor families used it when the mother 
was ill or died. Of 1098 adults surveyed, 96% believed that the can 
contains milk; 46% believed the Bear Brand logo indicates that the 
product is formulated for feeding to infants or to replace breast milk; 
80% had not read the written warning on the can; and over 18% reported 
giving the product to their infant at a mean age of 4.7 months (95% 
confidence interval 4.1 to 5.3)

*Conclusion:* The Bear Brand coffee creamer is used as a breast milk 
substitute in Laos. The cartoon logo influences people?s perception of 
the product that belies the written warning "This product is not to be 
used as a breast milk substitute." Use of this logo on coffee creamer is 
misleading to the local population and places the health of infants at risk.

-- 
Regards
Jane

_______________________________
Jane Teather
JET Documentation Services
54A Ferme Park Road
London
N4 4ED

tel: +44 (0) 20 8348 9213
mobile: +44 7967 366 252
teather at compuserve.com

Fellow of the Communication Research Institute
http://www.communication.org.au 




From SWANSONG at ecu.edu  Fri Sep 12 14:09:47 2008
From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:09:47 -0400
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: BMJ article
References: <48CA4ED7.6030403@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129BA5D@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>

Jane,

Interesting article. (The link worked.) Your summation was solid but the following two paragrahs were the crux of it for me:

"Nearly half of respondents did not notice the written warning on the label or the picture of a baby?s bottle with a cross through it. Some (12%) did not understand the meaning of the cross through the bottle. The cartoon bear and her cub seem to provide the most salient misinformation, and the warnings on the label are inadequate to ensure safe and appropriate use of this product. The data suggest that the image of the Bear Brand misleads parents, who believe the coffee creamer is a suitable food for babies.

"Protection of breast feeding by limiting the active promotion of the use of breast milk substitutes by formula companies is the central goal of the international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes.4 24 25 The sugar based coffee creamer, according to its label, is 'not . . . a breast-milk substitute.' The logo on the label of the bear holding a cub in the breastfeeding position, however, conveys quite the opposite message, making this a somewhat different type of code violation."

As a general rule, visual rhetoric is more difficult to pin down than verbal rhetoric is. This is partly because there are "rules" of syntax and grammar that allow people to identify verbal claims but it is partly because we tend to take the visual less seriously.

While there is legitimate need for certain warnings and cautionary notices, a disclaimer is good evidence that there has been a claim that needs dissing. The inclusion of "not . . . a breast-milk substitute" clearly implies "it is reasonable to assume that people will believe that this -is- a breast milk substitute." This does not mean that the company deliberately set out to confuse people and threaten the health of babies but regulators are more at ease stopping misleading verbal aspects of brand identities (e.g., here in the US reconstituted orange juice with the word "fresh" in the overall brand name has been disallowed) than visual claims.

Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858

gunnar at gunnarswanson.com
+1 252 258 7006

at East Carolina University:
+1 252 328 2839 
swansong at ecu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf of Jane Teather
Sent: Fri 9/12/2008 7:13 AM
To: Discussions about information design; Yong Kwok
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: BMJ article
 
Today's /British Medical Journal (BMJ)/ contains a report of research on 
a dangerously misleading product label.

I think the online mag is subscription-only, so this link may not work: 
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/sep09_2/a1379

So here is a summary:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Laos a popular coffee creamer is marketed with an illustration of a 
mother bear holding a baby bear in the breastfeeding position. The first 
listed ingredient is sugar and it contains 3.6% of calories as protein 
and 27.3% as fat. For infant formulas the recommended content is 
7.2-12.0% protein and 40-54% fat. The coffee creamer is sold in many 
rural roadside shops. The company uses the same Bear Brand logo on its 
canned sterilised cows' milk product and on infant formula products for 
infants from 6 months. A warning on the can states "This product is not 
to be used as breast milk substitute" in English, Thai, and Lao. There 
is also an illustration of a feeding bottle with a cross through it.

*Results of research:* Of 26 paediatricians surveyed, 24 said that 
parents "often" or "sometimes" fed this product to infants as a 
substitute for breast milk. In the capital city, paediatricians said 
that mothers used the product when they returned to work. In the 
countryside, they reported that poor families used it when the mother 
was ill or died. Of 1098 adults surveyed, 96% believed that the can 
contains milk; 46% believed the Bear Brand logo indicates that the 
product is formulated for feeding to infants or to replace breast milk; 
80% had not read the written warning on the can; and over 18% reported 
giving the product to their infant at a mean age of 4.7 months (95% 
confidence interval 4.1 to 5.3)

*Conclusion:* The Bear Brand coffee creamer is used as a breast milk 
substitute in Laos. The cartoon logo influences people's perception of 
the product that belies the written warning "This product is not to be 
used as a breast milk substitute." Use of this logo on coffee creamer is 
misleading to the local population and places the health of infants at risk.

-- 
Regards
Jane

_______________________________
Jane Teather
JET Documentation Services
54A Ferme Park Road
London
N4 4ED

tel: +44 (0) 20 8348 9213
mobile: +44 7967 366 252
teather at compuserve.com

Fellow of the Communication Research Institute
http://www.communication.org.au 



___________________________________________________________________

Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers: 
 infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org

To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
 http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe

For all Information Design matters:
 http://InformationDesign.org

Problems? Write to:
 InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
___________________________________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5456 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080912/af71ff78/attachment.bin 

From conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk  Fri Sep 12 19:12:54 2008
From: conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk (Conrad Taylor)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:12:54 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: BMJ article
In-Reply-To: <48CA4ED7.6030403@compuserve.com>
References: <48CA4ED7.6030403@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <a06200703c4f04e4a8fb0@[192.168.0.2]>

Interesting.  I remember that thirty years ago when it was near
to impossible to get fresh dairy produce in Thailand, "Bear Brand"
was what we put in our morning coffee, and it was "aroy" (delicious!)
with plaa tongkoo (a kind of doughnut) for breakfast.

The label was then, as I recall, printed monochrome on a creamy-
coloured paper and the English annotation described Bear Brand
as "condensed milk" rather than "sweetened beverage creamer"
which is probably more PC and even accurate but sounds weird.
There was a bear on the label, but more naturalistic than
cartoony, and definitely not with a baby bear.

I'm sure that the major conclusions are correct, that the
cartoon of adult bear and baby bear were taken to indicate
that the product can be fed to infants.  For the article to
describe this without qualification as a "breast-feeding
posture" might be contentious; (a) I myself have often
held infants in this posture and was assuredly not breast
feeding; (b) I confess I've not looked at a lady bear's
breasts to see where they are located (she mightn't have
taken kindly to it, even if naturally "bear-breasted").

The message in the visuals is important in the Lao context,
given that there are so many other languages e.g. Lisu, Yao,
Hmong, Lenten.

If we're going to approach this as information designers I
also want to take a sideswipe at the BMJ because the resolution
at which the all-important visual evidence (the label) is
presented is appalling!  At least make a high resolution image
available so that people can make up their own mind.

I would also like a deeper analysis of the translations into
Thai and Lao.  It is interesting that the Lao translation is
nearly twice as long as the Thai one, considering that the
two languages are such close kin as to be like, say, Dutch
and Frisian.  Indeed the Isaan dialect of NE Thailand is
practically the same as Lao.  So what is the discrepancy
in the translation?

Over the weekend I'll haul my Mary Haas Thai-English dictionary
off the shelf and figure out what the Thai legend says, at least.

Conrad


At 12:13 +0100 12/9/08, Jane Teather wrote:
>Today?s /British Medical Journal (BMJ)/ contains a report of research on
>a dangerously misleading product label.
>
>I think the online mag is subscription-only, so this link may not work:
>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/sep09_2/a1379
>
>So here is a summary:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In Laos a popular coffee creamer is marketed with an illustration of a
>mother bear holding a baby bear in the breastfeeding position. The first
>listed ingredient is sugar and it contains 3.6% of calories as protein
>and 27.3% as fat. For infant formulas the recommended content is
>7.2-12.0% protein and 40-54% fat. The coffee creamer is sold in many
>rural roadside shops. The company uses the same Bear Brand logo on its
>canned sterilised cows? milk product and on infant formula products for
>infants from 6 months. A warning on the can states "This product is not
>to be used as breast milk substitute" in English, Thai, and Lao. There
>is also an illustration of a feeding bottle with a cross through it.
>
>*Results of research:* Of 26 paediatricians surveyed, 24 said that
>parents "often" or "sometimes" fed this product to infants as a
>substitute for breast milk. In the capital city, paediatricians said
>that mothers used the product when they returned to work. In the
>countryside, they reported that poor families used it when the mother
>was ill or died. Of 1098 adults surveyed, 96% believed that the can
>contains milk; 46% believed the Bear Brand logo indicates that the
>product is formulated for feeding to infants or to replace breast milk;
>80% had not read the written warning on the can; and over 18% reported
>giving the product to their infant at a mean age of 4.7 months (95%
>confidence interval 4.1 to 5.3)
>
>*Conclusion:* The Bear Brand coffee creamer is used as a breast milk
>substitute in Laos. The cartoon logo influences people?s perception of
>the product that belies the written warning "This product is not to be
>used as a breast milk substitute." Use of this logo on coffee creamer is
>misleading to the local population and places the health of infants at risk.
>
>--
>Regards
>Jane


-- 


From teather at compuserve.com  Fri Sep 12 20:08:12 2008
From: teather at compuserve.com (Jane Teather)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:08:12 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: BMJ article
In-Reply-To: <a06200703c4f04e4a8fb0@[192.168.0.2]>
References: <48CA4ED7.6030403@compuserve.com>
	<a06200703c4f04e4a8fb0@[192.168.0.2]>
Message-ID: <48CAB00C.5010906@compuserve.com>

Having read the report in full, I was struck by one of the case studies. 
One woman (whose baby, sadly, died of severe malnutrition and pneumonia) 
stated that she had read the label and understood that the creamer was 
not for use instead of breast milk (so illiteracy was not the problem 
here), but she noted that the can?s label showed a mother bear with 
baby, and that people in her village consider this an acceptable infant 
food.

It has been shown in several contexts with healthcare information that 
people will go to what might seem extraordinary lengths to fit new 
information into the model they have formed and with which they feel at 
least partially comfortable. So the combination of the logo and her 
cultural background was powerful enough to override any disclaimers, and 
her decision made sense to her.

As Conrad pointed out, the reproduction of the label in the journal is 
very poor (a low-res scan), so it is difficult to study the whole thing. 
As far as I can see, the bottle-with-cross-through-it is not given 
prominence; and there appears to be a lot of ?nutritional? information 
implying that this substance is some kind of valuable component of a 
good diet. But the logo is easily visible, and how very strange it is (a 
bear holding a baby bear in a vaguely human-like ?nursing? position; I 
don?t think we need to get too pedantic about exactly where mummy bear?s 
nipples might be). If you were to show it, by itself, to any group of 
people in any culture, I reckon the vast majority would guess that this 
is a product for babies and possibly children. If they wanted to show an 
anthropomorphic bear, why not show one holding a coffee mug?

Gunnar said:
> a disclaimer is good evidence that there has been a claim that needs dissing.
>   
Quite. Why they chose this logo is a mystery, but someone must have felt 
uneasy.

Regards
Jane

_______________________________
Jane Teather
JET Documentation Services
54A Ferme Park Road
London
N4 4ED

tel: +44 (0) 20 8348 9213
mobile: +44 7967 366 252
teather at compuserve.com

Fellow of the Communication Research Institute
http://www.communication.org.au 







From mail at janeharper.com  Mon Sep  1 10:25:28 2008
From: mail at janeharper.com (jane harper)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:25:28 +0100
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
In-Reply-To: <6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
References: <a06200707c4e024a30638@[192.168.0.2]>
	<CA303908-D4A3-428B-ADB9-7746116C19A9@janeharper.com>
	<6ED5FA2C6AC74646B6E46BFB2894642F01C3822D@EVS-BAL.campus.unn.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <05AFC29D-2C1C-4799-8B18-A839D24B97E1@janeharper.com>

should have read it carefully the first time! thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On 31 Aug 2008, at 21:42, "elizabeth.lomas"  
<elizabeth.lomas at unn.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think that it is the idea that each batch of water needs to be  
> kept boiling for up to two weeks before being drunk - although I had  
> to read it twice!
>
> Good example of a human error.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: infodesign-cafe-bounces at list.informationdesign.org on behalf  
> of jane harper
> Sent: Sun 31/08/2008 21:31
> To: Discussions about information design
> Subject: Re: InfoD-Cafe: Instructions about boiling water
>
>
>
> why is this seen to be funny?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 31 Aug 2008, at 11:38, Conrad Taylor <conrad at ideograf.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> My mother informs me that one of our water companies has been
>> having problems in one area with water quality, so they have
>> made an announcement to the effect that residents are advised
>> to boil any water intended for human consumption "for about
>> a fortnight".
>>
>> Could get expensive.
>>
>> Conrad
>>
>> --
>> the Conradiator: http://conradiator.wordpress.com <http://conradiator.wordpress.com/ 
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>>
>> For all Information Design matters:
>> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>>
>> Problems? Write to:
>> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
>> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org <http://informationdesign.org/>
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
> to be clean.
>
> The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
> Systems and Services, Newcastle University.
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
> infodesign-cafe at list.informationdesign.org
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
> http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
> http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
> InfoDesign-Cafe-Admin at list.InformationDesign.org
> ___________________________________________________________________


From dtp at she-philosopher.com  Tue Sep  2 02:49:13 2008
From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:49:13 -0700
Subject: InfoD-Cafe: From abstract to concrete visual representations
In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
References: <d14a175a0808260618s78cbbd70sb89a8f941dd11aee@mail.gmail.com><556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9BB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6164C.4040706@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D4@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B6FE92.1060701@she-philosopher.com>	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9D7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>	<48B8573F.8060705@she-philosopher.com>
	<556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC0129B9E2@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu>
Message-ID: <48BC8D89.4020107@she-philosopher.com>

Gunnar,

> Since the triangle is
> about style of visual
> representation, there is
> no distinction between an
> image informed by
> philosophers and theologians
> and one copied from a
> randomly chosen snapshot.
> Your assumption that moving
> toward specific narrative,
> thus "text," means a
> movement toward the right
> corner is just another
> reason that he would have
> been better off stopping
> with drawings.

A break didn't help.

I'm now totally confused. <vbg>


To begin with, I have no idea what "style of visual representation" means.

I thought I did at one point ... but every time I try to plot
early-modern "representations" within the