Speak of the...umm...devil... :-) > This is essentially a "degree-of-interest" tree, which has been > around for a while (e.g., > http://www.parc.xerox.com/research/projects/sensemaking/visualization_intera ction/default.html) > and the underlying concept dates back to the '80s.
What was that tool you had implemented for visualizing trees, which I referenced in my previous email? > It looks nice, but the hierarchy shown is shallow and > not too broad. That said, this would be a fun way to > display a classification like ITIS. However, at some > point we need to ask whether "fun" translates into usability. This is a good point. Usability needs to trump sex appeal. But "fun" can do something that usability oftentimes can't: engage people who might otherwise not be engaged. All new approaches to interface haves hampered usability in the beginning. The question is, is it simply a matter of getting used to a new interface, or does the interface just plain suck even after you get to know how to use it? You can't always tell from first impressions. > Some of the coolest visualisations turn out to be difficult to use ( > e.g., hyperbolic trees). That's it! Hyperbolic trees. I, for one, found it very useful. Rich _______________________________________________ tdwg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
