| Line 1 was replaced by lines 1-3 |
| - Kepler Symbology |
| + This document is intended for __Kepler designers and developers__. It is part of a proposed re-design and does not reflect visual design and functionality as it currently exists in Kepler. Comments and feedback are appreciated. |
| + ---- |
| + This is the place to discuss kepler symbology. I've laid the foundation for reducing the number of vastly different symbols into a more unified, easier to remember and easier to recognize set. However, this is a minimal set and will need to be expanded, but the goal is still to keep to a small set of simple symbols that use the proposed (limited) color set. |
| Line 3 was replaced by line 5 |
| - This is the place to discuss kepler symbology during the re-design process. I've laid the foundation for reducing the number of vastly different symbols into a more unified, easier to remember and easier to recognize set. However, this is a minimal set and will need to be expanded but the goal is still to keep to a small set of simple symbols that use a limited color set. |
| + Please see the recent [proposed Kepler redesign|http://cvs.ecoinformatics.org/cvs/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/kepler-docs/dev/usability/Proposed Kepler Re-Design.ppt]. |
| Line 5 was replaced by line 7 |
| - Please see the recent [proposed Kepler redesign|http://cvs.ecoinformatics.org/cvs/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/kepler/docs/dev/usability/Proposed Kepler Re-Design.ppt]. |
| + For background information on usability in general and Kepler usability, see [Kepler Usability|http://kepler-project.org/Wiki.jsp?page=KeplerUsability] |
| Line 7 was replaced by lines 9-10 |
| - The usability objectives regarding symbology as listed in the proposed re-design are: |
| + |
| + The design rationale regarding symbology as listed in the proposed re-design are: |
| At line 12 added 43 lines. |
| + Feedback from a discussion on symbology at the recent Estes Park, CO meeting held May 2005 included: |
| + *need to expand # of icons in current propopsal |
| + *consider mechanism for communicating both composite form and its function (kind of composite) (Laura will work with the graphic designer to produce design) |
| + *add "external program" icon (Laura will work with the graphic designer to produce design) |
| + *need to define small set of types of computations __(Need__ __feedback__ __from__ __the__ __team__ __on__ __this!)__ |
| + *add "graphs" icon to display set of icons which would include scatter plots, bar graphs etc. (Laura will work with the graphic designer to produce the design) |
| + *consider defining small set of atomic actors that go across ontologies and small set of icons for ecology domain -- LLD> issue here would still be that same kind of functions might be represented differently across ontologies |
| + *consider tying symbols to semantics in ontology - LLD> but this might still lead to lots of icons |
| + *consider providing a baseline set of symbols while controlling color but allow others to add their own symbols -- LLD> this could result in a large number of symbols and also could result in multiple symbols representing the same concept. |
| + *web service (gear) seems to be based on "plumbing" rather than function so this was somewhat confusing. Gear will be reserved to possibly represent specifically some kind of low level grid service. |
| + *some discussion on whether director should even be shown and whether is should be differentiated even further visually from an actor -- one idea was to consider just using the megaphone without the teal square as a background. |
| + |
| + __All feedback is welcome and encouraged, but what is needed foremost are suggestions for expanding the computation category to cover several top level types of computation such as integrals, summations etc. We will definitely add an "R" represention which will just be an "R" since that is the current and known symbol. I would also like to add "statistics" as a high level category. |
| + |
| + What other types of high level categories of computation do you think need to be included? Remember we are trying to keep to a small set of symbols that specific actors can be categorized to.__ |
| + |
| + For reference, here are the current symbols and the proposed symbols: |
| + |
| + Director, File, and Display Actors |
| + \\ |
| + \\ |
| + [http://cvs.ecoinformatics.org/cvs/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/kepler-docs/dev/usability/curr-prop1.gif] |
| + \\ |
| + \\ |
| + All other actors |
| + \\ |
| + \\ |
| + [http://cvs.ecoinformatics.org/cvs/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/kepler-docs/dev/usability/curr-prop2.gif] |
| + \\ |
| + \\ |
| + Add comments to the bottom of this page and preface them with your initials or name etc. Thanks! |
| + |
| + So far the suggestions for additions to the "computation" category are: |
| + *LLD>R |
| + *LLD>Integral |
| + *LLD>Summation |
| + *LLD>Statistics |
| + *DDP>Equation |
| + *DDP>Model (Statistical, mathematical, mechanistic, simulation, cellular automata, etc.) |
| + *DDP>SpatialProcessing |
| + *DDP>SignalProcessing |
| + |
| + |
