Graphicacy: Difference between revisions
m For *whom* to interpret graphics? A person? A machine? Is this psych, CS, or something else? |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{context}} |
{{context}} |
||
'''Graphicacy''' |
'''Graphicacy''' is concerned with the capacities people require in order to interpret and generate information in the form of [[graphics]]. |
||
Our society is becoming increasingly reliant on graphics to communicate information. Until recently, words and numbers were the main vehicles for communication because of their relative ease of production and distribution compared with graphics. However, advances in [[information and communications technology]] now mean that graphics are far more readily available and widely used than ever before. The 21st century is an age in which it is becoming essential for informed citizens to be able to communicate using graphics, much as those in previous centuries needed to be [[literate]] and [[numerate]]. Today's citizens must be able to comprehend the [[information graphics]] produced by others and this requires that they interpret such information appropriately. However, it is also becoming important that people can present information effectively to others by means of graphics they have generated themselves. |
|||
Interpretation of graphics is ''loosely'' analogous to the process of [[reading]] [[text]], while generation of graphics is the counterpart of [[writing]] text. However, these analogies should not be taken too far because text and graphics are based on very different [[symbol]] [[system]]s. For example, whereas text is structured according to formal organisational rules that apply irrespective of the [[content]], this is not the case for graphics. With text [[structure]], the units of [[information]] ([[word]]s) are expected to be organised according to broad conventions (such as being sequenced in orderly rows starting from top left and progressing down the page). However graphics are not subject a similarly stringent set of structural conventions. Instead, it is the content itself that largely determine the nature of the graphic [[entities]] and the way they are arranged. Because of these and other fundamental differences between text and graphics, it is appropriate that the processes involved in [[comprehension]] and [[production]] of graphics are clearly distinguishd from those involved in comprehension and production of text. |
Interpretation of graphics is ''loosely'' analogous to the process of [[reading]] [[text]], while generation of graphics is the counterpart of [[writing]] text. However, these analogies should not be taken too far because text and graphics are based on very different [[symbol]] [[system]]s. For example, whereas text is structured according to formal organisational rules that apply irrespective of the [[content]], this is not the case for graphics. With text [[structure]], the units of [[information]] ([[word]]s) are expected to be organised according to broad conventions (such as being sequenced in orderly rows starting from top left and progressing down the page). However graphics are not subject a similarly stringent set of structural conventions. Instead, it is the content itself that largely determine the nature of the graphic [[entities]] and the way they are arranged. Because of these and other fundamental differences between text and graphics, it is appropriate that the processes involved in [[comprehension]] and [[production]] of graphics are clearly distinguishd from those involved in comprehension and production of text. |
||
Revision as of 05:57, 11 October 2005
 | This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. |
Graphicacy is concerned with the capacities people require in order to interpret and generate information in the form of graphics.
Our society is becoming increasingly reliant on graphics to communicate information. Until recently, words and numbers were the main vehicles for communication because of their relative ease of production and distribution compared with graphics. However, advances in information and communications technology now mean that graphics are far more readily available and widely used than ever before. The 21st century is an age in which it is becoming essential for informed citizens to be able to communicate using graphics, much as those in previous centuries needed to be literate and numerate. Today's citizens must be able to comprehend the information graphics produced by others and this requires that they interpret such information appropriately. However, it is also becoming important that people can present information effectively to others by means of graphics they have generated themselves.
Interpretation of graphics is loosely analogous to the process of reading text, while generation of graphics is the counterpart of writing text. However, these analogies should not be taken too far because text and graphics are based on very different symbol systems. For example, whereas text is structured according to formal organisational rules that apply irrespective of the content, this is not the case for graphics. With text structure, the units of information (words) are expected to be organised according to broad conventions (such as being sequenced in orderly rows starting from top left and progressing down the page). However graphics are not subject a similarly stringent set of structural conventions. Instead, it is the content itself that largely determine the nature of the graphic entities and the way they are arranged. Because of these and other fundamental differences between text and graphics, it is appropriate that the processes involved in comprehension and production of graphics are clearly distinguishd from those involved in comprehension and production of text.
Nature of graphics
The concept of graphicacy addresses the characteristic features of graphic information that distinguish it from other forms of representation such as verbal and numerical information. Separating graphicacy from literacy and numeracy helps us to understand the distinctive and complementary types of contributions that graphics, words, and numbers can each make in human communication. It shows why attempts to substitute graphic communication for verbal communication are doomed to failure (as in the case of Bliss Symbolics)