Kepler Symbology

This is version 20. It is not the current version, and thus it cannot be edited.
[Back to current version]   [Restore this version]

Please see the recent proposed Kepler redesign.

For background information on usability in general and Kepler usability reports see:

• General Usability Presentation at KU/November 2004
• Presentation on Initial Kepler Usability Issues (mostly visual issues) at KU/November 2004
• December 2004 Kepler Usability Report- report on Kepler usability issues from user feedback and group testing of basic operations during BEAM/ENM workshop
• January 2005 Kepler Usability Report - report on Kepler usability issues from user feedback and group testintg of basic operations during SEEK Ecoinformatics workshop

The design rationale regarding symbology as listed in the proposed re-design are:

• Use a limited number of symbols/shapes.
• Use simple shapes.
• Use standard/known symbols or ones that are easily learned.
• Add some uniformity.

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 some 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.

All feedback is welcome and encouraged, but what I need 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. I would also like to add "statistics" as a high level category.

What other types of high level computations 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.

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