 |
 |
Charles, I agree completely. Engineers depend too much on "plain text". I'm trying to convince them to balance their approach by considering other forms. Engineers are *extremely* risk-averse, so I'm proceeding in relatively tiny stages, to sneak up on them as it were. :-) Cheers. Fil Charles Burnette User wrote: > Dear Fil: > > The problem as I see it is that we fail to make effective and systematically > correlated use of different forms of representation: declarations, > descriptions, topological structures, (Diagrams, graphs etc.), situated > visualizations, temporal processes, empirical differentiations, and stories > in particular. Why emphasize one at the expense of the others? They all have > their uses and deserve their place in the firmament whether that is the > domain of Engineering or not. > > Best, > > Charles Burnette > > > On 6/8/04 4:51 PM, "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > >>Keith, >> >>Engineers make things "official" with text (except for the CAD models). >>But there's 'way more information that's needed to design than just CAD >>models. All that other info gets captured in text. The difficulty of >>understanding the text makes people stay away from it - leading to errors >>in design cuz they don't bother reading the stuff they ought to. And even >>if they do, the interrelationships described in linear text often become >>very confusing. >> >>However, using diagrams has in informal tests shown to improve (a) speed of >>'comprehension' of information, (b) retainment of that information, (c) >>speed with which "issues" including both problems and opportunities for >>novelty are identified. >> >>So it seems (to me) that diagrams better represent certain types of >>(engineering) design info than does plain text. That shouldn't surprise >>non-engineering designers. It is, however, a constant source of amazement >>to my colleages. Go figure. >> >>I just pitched it out as my little story about diagrams. >> >>Cheers. >>Fil >> >>Keith Russell wrote: >> >>>Dear Fil, >>> >>>I'm not sure what the example you provide shows - if I show a reader of >>>English a "novel" sentence and they understand it without reference to >>>the grammar, syntax, phonetics etc, I wouldn't be at all surprised. >>> >>>Show illustrations that include "nouns" (gears) and "verbs" (arrrows) in >>>structure relationships is a language - yes. >>> >>>700 technical words might take more time but that is a matter of choice >>>just as the pictures are a matter of choice. (650 good words might take >>>less?) >>> >>>If there were elements of "novelty" at the level of grammar and/or >>>syntax in the illustration then I am sure the amount of time required to >>>"read" the pictures would go up. >>> >>>Keith Russell >>>OZ Newcastle >>> >>> >>>Filippo A. Salustri >>> >>>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. >>>Cheers. >>>Fil >> >>-- >>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/ > > > -- 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/