**Day 2 Morning Breakout Session -- Best Practices in Visualization
Summary Notes**

**Resolution:**

Footprints done in 2K x 4K -- very forward looking, right now 1K x 2K
perfectly acceptable. Will probably years before everyone can take
advantage of 2K x 4K. Need to investigate intermediate resolutions of
power of 2K x 4K -- is the highest we could conceive of in the next 5
years. Would be interesting to put out a 2K x 1K version of Footprints
-- some people already running it at 800 x 800, seems to run okay. Need
to use a good program to do the downconverting otherwise will lose
features. If shoot film in HD then will get better quality product
regardless of size shown.

Magic planet will be using 2048 x 1024 so that will be good to use for
cross platform purposes.

**Layering & other techniques:**

Layering is an issue (adding labels, data etc.) as different people will
want different things. Are procedural issues for someone who is creating
layers -- should we have single layers that comprise a set or have more
information contained in one layer? Should we wait until SOS has
layering capabilities or should we do layers now?

Incorporation of flat panel display for zoom-ins, more information etc.
-- James Madison University does not like to use picture in picture,
tends to distract more than add to the experience. Can link the plasma
displays to show more information -- that way you can maintain the
spherical nature of the sphere. No point in putting non-spherical data
on a sphere.

Need to determine latitudinal area above which you can't put labels
(can't read them otherwise). Footprints has found what this is & will
provide the point on the sphere above which it is hard to read labels.
NASA happy to have discussion about the techniques they used -- may have
issues with NASA software distribution process. Are other tools out
there e.g. Flaming Pear. What should be the minimum font size for
titles?

Need to decide up front what is the best way to label things -- need
feedback and evaluation about what works and what doesn't work to let
content providers know what they should be producing -- it's an
iterative process. NASA unusual case as they will continue to produce
content regardless -- work on it as a side project.

**Content:**

Should have guidelines about what should be shown on a sphere -- what
types of content are more appropriate for sphere presentations. Need to
justify use of SOS and if have content that can just be put on a flat
screen then won't justify sphere use. Should focus on what the sphere
does well -- e.g. global data.

Cartographic concepts -- use of scale? Probably not needed if showing
global data. Use of color? Have groups of people who can guide what
colors should be used (e.g. ColorBrewer out of Penn State) -- question
has been largely answered. NASA uses color transfer function. Need to
think about what you are trying to show -- e.g. use of transparency,
NASA shows the ozone hole as a transparent hole -- jumps out at the
viewer. Transparency can be used to highlight one specific thing -- want
something to jump out at the audience. What about the use of a legend?

Developing stories: data sets can be linked to expand on a story/concept
(e.g. cloud cover) could start off with visual, then go to infrared etc.
Scripts are needed to talk through the data sets. Can use questions to
involve the audience and expand the data, keeps audience involved and
can explain science of using real-time data.

What kinds of data sets are needed by people? International Polar Year
is coming up, need programming for that.

Guidelines to vet content -- scientific, educational, cultural? Should
there be a cultural filter at the national guideline level? How can this
be adopted as a standard? Or should the local centers add their own
cultural content?

Who are the guidelines for? Are they for NOAA/NASA scientist to use to
design basic SOS programs which the centers can then add to? Should
content providers also write some basic science talking points to go
along with the data? Depending on who creates the data, there may not be
anyone available to answer the phone if a center has a questions about
the data. Scientists should provide accompanying talking points at the
museum level. Another way would be to work with a science writer.
Important point is that there is a scientific review process -- should
also have a second review after the product is finished. Centers would
like to have contact with the scientist when the data has been put out
there -- could set up a teleconference with the scientists involved in
the creation of the data. Could add cultural content at this stage.

Guidelines should ensure a point of contact of the content provider and
a base level of science comprehension about the visualization provided.
Visualization should be added to the library and shared among centers --
both in terms of assets and interpretations.

**Evaluation:**

Is a need for understanding how visualizations work. But need funding to
evaluate -- may be hard for NOAA to fund this kind of research. There
are content developers who will give away content as long as there is
feedback on how they work. Comes back to the difference between
anecdotal feedback and formal feedback (as discussed in the Evaluation
breakout group). Formal feedback will need resources to it do properly.
Easiest way to do it might be to make it part of the formative
evaluation rather than calling it basic research.