Talk:Interactive visualization

Systems Redirect‑class High‑importance

	Systems science portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is within the field of Visualization.

Propose merging this article with Visualization (computer graphics)

I would argue that visualization is by definition interactive. It goes without saying that people use mice, keyboards, etc. to interact with visual data on computers in real time. I suppose it doesn't hurt to explicitly say so, but I don't think it's worth a separate article. I propose merging this with Visualization (computer graphics).

Brad Halls 20:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Or at the very least we could rename the article to "Interactivity in visualization" so that it doesn't get confused with the other visualization subject articles. Please comment here if you have an opinion on this. --Infografica (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think renaming is a solution here. "Interactive visualization" is a concept on it's own. The term itself has a google rate of 374.000. This article simply needs further improvement. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "interactive visualization" is a concept on its own, perhaps it makes sense to figure out more precisely what the concept is. It's not just the quality of this article alone that matters, but how it fits into already large set of visualization articles. It's entirely possible that someone interested in data visualization in general--but who is unfamiliar with the field's terminology--might type "interactive visualization" into Wikipedia. I also think Brad's reaction above (that all visualization is interactive) is logical.

That said, I like the idea of using Google to get a sense of current usage. As far as I can see, the main distinct idea in the top results seems to be a set of particular techniques for speeding up scientific visualization to allow interactive frame rates. That corresponds to the material in the "rapid response to human input" section of the current version of the article. Given this, my suggestion is that (if the article is kept) we put the "rapid response" section front and center. I also believe it would be useful to make explicit the focus of the article, and say how it relates to the other articles. How does this sound as a plan? --Infografica (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are doing to keep this article on "interactive" visualization (implying that this is somehow fundamentally different than visualization itself), then I think that in order to be consistent, we need to also create the following new articles:

interactive databases
interactive spreadsheets
interactive word processors
interactive computer games
interactive CAD programs
interactive Wiki's
interactive ... well, you get the idea. :-)

Brad Halls (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! a very good point. I have to admit, it's hard to see what's really distinct in this topic. The rendering techniques I mentioned above could certainly be a subsection of a scientific vis article. Marcel, can you say more about how you see this as a truly distinct topic? --Infografica (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Brad Halls. I guess you agree rename the article to "Interactivity in visualization" isn't a solution here. It seems to me all the thinks you mention could be explained in the Interactivity article. Maybe it is an option to merge some of this article there, and some of it in one of the visualization articles. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to start merging some of this material, unless someone else wants to or there are further objections. --Infografica (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only proposed the merge as a possible option, which I would like to discuss some more first. I like to hear Brad Halls opinion on this and I have some more ideas on my own. Sorry Infografica, I oppose start merging right away. Just shifting information from one article to an other isn't my idea of improving the situation here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrrect, I don't see how renaming helps at all. Actually, I do think moving the content improves the situation. :-) It puts this material where it logically belongs (IMHO). I vote merge it yesterday. Brad Halls (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if merging this article in an other article is even an acceptable solution. The situation is still far from clear to me. I guess Infografica is right, it's hard to see what's really distinct in this topic. I noticed some more:

This article itselve is a strange composition of elements
I noticed this article has two origins:
- On 3 January 2006 Butterwaffle started what he called "New article on information visualization", see here.
- On 8 January 2006 Brainhell started an article on "Interactive Visualization", see here.

Now I recently developed a new article about Information visualization, which is mostly based on text from references. Maybe some text on Interactive visualization can be added there, but that text should be referenced. A same thing can be done in the interactivity article. So instead of merging this text, I propose to compose two or more texts about interactive visualization in different places, and redirect this article to a new section on interactive visualization in the Information visualization article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am also developing a new visualization article which could also contain a short text about this.

Well, I think I have made my opinion pretty clear. Not much else to say, do what you will :-) Brad Halls (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]