Klaus et al,

I agree with Klaus in essence, but there's other issues.  Let me give an
example of what I mean by visual language and maybe that can help explain
things.

I have a diagram of a gear system.  There are a few text labels, but mostly
the diagram is a bunch of partly or completely overlapping boxes with some
arrows connecting them up.  I show the diagram to a group of engineers.  I
tell them they have 15 seconds to study the diagram, and that I will then
ask them questions.

The questions are about the gear system, not about the diagram.  I never
mention "box" or "arrow" or anything like that.

The point of interest to me is that no one answers referring to graphical
entities in the picture, but rather to the elements of the gear system
itself.  And the answers I get tell me they actually understand the
graphical representation, even though they've never seen that kind of
diagram before.

They don't "see" the picture; they "see" what the picture stands for.

Eventually, I explain to them that they've just learned how to "read" my
diagrams, without any instruction whatsoever.  Then, sometimes, they look
impressed.  But mostly they look like I've just shown them an interesting
parlour trick.

The "text" alternative would be about 700 words long and would require a
few minutes at least for people to understand.  And even then, their
answers to my questions would come much slower - usually cuz they keep
referring back to the text and having to search for information.

Cheers.
Fil

klaus krippendorff wrote:
> nice flip,
> cheryl:
>
> "Turn the picture of your up-hill battle upside down then it is down hill
> all the way.
>
> Seriously try and get your engineers to image their work without diagrams."
>
> on the issue of visual language, there are various opinions of whether there
> is one.  many people use metaphors and talk of visual language, film
> language, product language, the language of photography, even the language
> of the brain.  the latter is clearly bogus.  the brain does what it does and
> is often informed by spoken language.
>
> to me, language is an interpersonal pattern that has a long history of joint
> use and is continuously developed and shaped as we speak.  clearly, language
> is not restricted to vocalization and text.  after all, text is a visual
> phenomenon, and so are lip movements, gestures, and body postures.  so are
> also the kind of things that we draw to explain what takes too much time to
> express in words.  this is true for engineering diagrams and for showing the
> appearance of products.  however, there have been many studies made of how
> even medical images are shaped by the concepts we use to talk about medical
> problems.
>
> i think there is no visual language as independently teachable as is spoken
> language.  visual phenomena accompany spoken language, correlate with spoken
> language, enrich spoken language, but is not a language in its own right.
>
> a good example is mathematics.  it is taught while speaking a language.  the
> meanings of its characters are explained in the non-mathematical terms of
> ordinary language, using metaphors, similes, literal definitions, etc.
> there is nothing natural of mathematics, only a highly disciplined and
> socially acceptable way of moving characters around.  why people speak of
> the language of mathematics, this is because it is relatively easy to draw a
> boundary within language to say where which mathematical operations apply
> and where they do not.
>
> with visual language you can't do that, really.
>
> klaus


--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University                         Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St.                           Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON                                email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3  Canada                            http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/