Knowledge visualization: A new framework for interactive graphic interface design
Diagrams communicate massive amounts of information at a glance. Complex domains can be simplified and extended with diagrammatic notations. Computational systems can certainly benefit from the use of diagrams. However, graphic interfaces are difficult and time consuming to write. We need a way of shortening the graphic-interface building cycle so that it is relatively easy and fast to add a graphic interface to any application that may benefit from it.
A general-purpose, graphic-interface-building tool kit that a designer or user, not a programmer, can use to design and attach graphic interfaces to applications can greatly speed up and lower the costs of adding graphics to systems. In this paper, I describe a new framework for interactive graphic interface design. The framework will enable graphic-interface-building tools which are general purpose, inter-active, and application-specific.
The framework consists of a taxonomy (ontology) of visual properties that span sub-object properties, full objects, and the relationships between objects. The taxonomy forms a skeleton on which to hang methods for manipulating these visual properties, objects, relations, and composites. The methods consist of the generation of prototypes, the recognition of properties in objects, and mouse manipulation functions for modifying properties in an object. Further characteristics of the framework are that the properties are composable, that objects can be explicitly, incrementally described through repeated composition and application of recognition methods, and that the composition of properties to form more fully described and more complex objects is recursive. This makes the framework and the objects within it quite flexible, incremental, uniform, and modular.
Key wordsKnowledge visualization diagram understanding visual knowledge visual language visual representation interactive graphics visual property taxonomy knowledge-based graphics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.R.P. Feynman,Quantum Electrodynamics, Addison-Wesley: Reading MA, 1961.Google Scholar
- 2.J.S. Brown, “Research that reinvents the corporation,”Harvard Business Review, pp. 102–111, 1991.Google Scholar
- 3.F. Zdybel, N.R. Greenfield, M.D. Yonke, and J. Gibbons, “An information presentation system,” in Proc. of the 7th IJCAI. Vancouver BC, Canada, 1981, pp. 978–984.Google Scholar
- 4.M. Friedell, J. Barnett, and D. Kramlich, “Context-sensitive, graphic presentation of information,”Computer Graphics vol. 16, pp. 181–188, 1982.Google Scholar
- 5.E.C. Ciccarelli, “Presentation based user interfaces,” PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, A.I. Lab., 1984.Google Scholar
- 6.J.D. Holland, E.L. Hutchins, and L. Weitzman, “STEAMER: An interactive inspectable simulation-based training system,”Al Magazine vol. 5, pp. 15–27, 1984.Google Scholar
- 7.P.S. Barth, “An object-oriented approach to graphical interfaces,”ACM Transactions on Graphics vol. 5, pp. 142–172, 1986.Google Scholar
- 8.B.A. Myers,Creating User Interfaces by Demonstration. Academic Press: Boston MA, 1988.Google Scholar
- 9.G. Singh, C.H. Kok, and T.Y. Ngan, “Druid: A system for demonstrational rapid user interface development,” in Proc. of Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Snowbird UT, 1990, pp. 167–177.Google Scholar
- 10.P.R. Calder, and M.A. Linton, “Glyphs: Flyweight objects for user interfaces,” in Proc. of Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Snowbird UT, 1990, pp. 92–101.Google Scholar
- 11.F. Lakin, “Visual grammars for visual languages,” in Proc. of the Nat. Conf. on AI, Seattle WA, 1987, pp. 683–688.Google Scholar
- 12.F. Lakin, “Spatial parsing for visual languages,” in Visual Languages, by S.K. Chang, T. Ichikawa, and P.A. Ligomenides (editors), Plenum Press: New York NY, pp. 35–85, 1987.Google Scholar
- 13.R.E. Filman, J. Lamping, and F.S. Montalvo, “Meta-language and meta-reasoning,” in Proc. of the 8th IJCAI, Karlsruhe, West Germany, 1983, pp. 365–369.Google Scholar
- 14.D.M. Levy, D.C. Brotsky, and K.R. Olson, “Formalizing the figural: Aspects of a foundation for document manipulation,” in Proc. of ACM Conference on Document Processing Systems, Santa Fe NM, 1988, pp. 145–151.Google Scholar
- 15.N. Bongard,Pattern Recognition, Macmillan & Co. Ltd.: London, Great Britain, 1970.Google Scholar
- 16.F.S. Montalvo, “Knowledge visualizer: A graphic interface-building tool kit,” MIT Media Lab., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA, Technical Report, 1988.Google Scholar
- 17.R.G. Bushko, “KRA-Knowledge-Rich Analogy: Adaptive estimation with common sense,” Master's thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, EECS Dept., 1990.Google Scholar
- 18.D.B. Lenat, and R.V. Guha,Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems, Addison-Wesley: Reading MA, 1990.Google Scholar
- 19.R. Greenlee, “Representing Visual Knowledge,” Unpublished manuscript for class project for an MIT EECS Dept. course entitled “Knowledge-Based Application Systems,” Course No. 6.871, 1987.Google Scholar
- 20.F.S. Montalvo, “Diagram understanding: The symbolic descriptions behind the scenes,” in Visual Languages and Applications, by T. Ichikawa, E. Jungert, and R.R. Korfhage (editors), Plenum Press: New York NY, pp. 5–27, 1990.Google Scholar
- 21.AAAI-91, Panel on “Knowledge representation: Broadening the perspective,” Anaheim CA, July, 1991. Recorded on tape. Also an article by R. Davis and H. Shrobe, to be submitted to AI Magazine.Google Scholar