Talk:Visualization (graphics)

message: I've added this article to :category:infographics ... I think that information graphics would be a superset of viz because visualizations are usually generated automatically (by computer) whereas many other types of information graphics are created by hand. I mean that viz is a graphic created automatically by a computer from a given data set.
My feeling is that the summary here in viz is overly broad: Visualization is any technique for creating images, diagrams, or animations to communicate a message. .. for example FOLDOC says Making a visible presentation of numerical data, particularly a graphical one. ... anyway, I'm trying to classify all of the visual communications in some kind of logical order, comments welcome... Sbwoodside 05:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visualization and [[information graphics]] 

message: I couldn't agree more. The summary for this article is essentially the same as the one for information graphics, and is way to broad. I propose that this article be renamed & rescoped to "Visualization (computer graphics)" or similar, and as such it would be a proper subset of information graphics. As it is, there is a lot of unnecessary redundancy. 
This is also true with the various sub-topics (knowledge vis, product vis, scientific vis, visual communication, etc.) Most of these are already covered under various information graphics topics (from a non-computer graphics point of view). Here, I think it would make sense to scope these to how each field is handled with respect to computer graphics.
Brad Halls 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose renaming & rescoping this article to "Visualization (computer graphics)" 

message: Visualization is by definition interactive. It goes without saying that people use mice, keyboards, etc. to interact with visual data on computers in real time. I suppose it doesn't hurt to explicitly say so, but I don't think it's worth a separate article. 
Brad Halls 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merging [[Interactive visualization]] into this article 

message: I do not agree. True interactive visualization is one of the most complicated parts of the computer graphics. It does deserve separate article and probably expanding existing Interactive visualization. By true interactive visualization I mean the interface in which user can (i) explore the data with read out of data subsets (points, intersections, ROI, etc.); (ii) navigate through huge data sets; (iii) place markers, perform measurements of parameters of the interest as well as communicate important points to others.
I also cast my vote for "do not agree".  My company does design visualization (refered to here as graphic visualization.)  This can refer to animations, stills, etc. created on a computer that depict how something looks, feels, works, etc.  A still, by it's very nature, is not interactive.  Interactive visualizations require input from the user in order to convey their message, simple graphic visualizations do not.
NC3D 01:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Interactive visualization]] deserves separate article 

message: I guess my basic problem with the Interactive visualization article is that it seems to imply that interactive visualization software is some sort of specialized subset of visualization software, which it isn't. They are the same (today). By this logic, there should also be separate articles for Visualization software used by humans, and Visualization software that runs on computers.
I think what you are implying is that this article could be morphed into an article on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), which is fine - then at least it would be providing some value to Wikipedia. As is, I maintain that it does not.
Brad Halls 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Interactive visualization]] is redundant! 

message: I have removed the following commercial link which is unrelated to this topic:
*Effective Visualization In 6 Minutes Scientific resource to achieve Alpha state visualization starting in 6 minutes.
Dr. Peter Lankton 08:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link removal 

message: I have merged the Scientific Visualization, Educational Visualization, and Knowledge visualization articles into this one.  Much of the information on those pages was redundant, predominantly focused on explaining the differences between these fields.  While the distinctions are valid, there is not enough information in the articles at this time to warrant individual articles.  Also, the separation makes it difficult for someone to come along and get a good grasp of visualization in general.  I hope that by merging these articles that we can gather together the information and build a really good visualization article here.
There are two other articles (Product Visualization and Interactive Visualization) that could be merged into here as well.  I started with the other three, and I'll let the community decide if these two articles should be incorporated here or be kept separate.
Teryx (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: It's pretty well known that the rainbow color map is a poor color map.  It would be better to replace the Rayleigh-Taylor visualization with one that doesn't make use of this color map.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.161.31.194 (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the rainbow color map 

message: See Talk:Visualization#Merge with Visualization (computer graphics) -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into Visualization 

message: The "Educational Visualization” section has some parts that are unclear and absurd. I haven’t studied this subject, so I wouldn’t presume to be able to write something accurate about it (grammar and logic are my applicable strengths). I hope someone can figure out what to do with these problems. This is what is wrong with it: 
In the Roman times, this is very useful when teaching about a topic which is difficult to otherwise see, for example, atomic structure, because atoms are far too small to be studied easily without expensive and difficult to use scientific equipment.
“Roman times” are long gone. “Topics” is an abstract concept, so it cannot be seen. “Difficult to use” is an adjective that would need to be hyphenated if it should be kept in the article, but it shouldn’t, since it is particularly subjective; it should be replaced with a word like “complex,” but something more should be added, since that’s too vague and doesn’t nail down the idea.
It can also be used to view past events, such as looking at dinosaurs, or looking at things that are difficult or fragile to look at in reality like the human skeleton, without causing physical or mental harm to a subjective volunteer or cadaver.
Is “looking at dinosaurs” meant to be the past event, or are the dinosaurs? The first is the intended meaning, but there is a semantic disconnection between the first and second clauses. It would be best to say things like, “things that no longer exist” instead of “past events” for dinosaurs, and “such at the Battle of Waterloo” instead of “such as dinosaurs” for past events, and to say who is doing the looking here. And, with visualization, a person is looking at a recreation, not the real thing.<BR><BR>
Nothing can be “fragile to look at,” and a human skeleton is not normally considered fragile unless one is dealing with massive forces.<BR><BR>
A cadaver cannot be caused mental harm.<BR><BR>
Greta Hoostal (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Educational Visualization” Section Needs Help 

message: I put in a link to data visualization, which was not linked from this main article, nor listed in the "See also" section, even though statistical graphics were.  To refrain from OR, I have not elucidated the relationship between scientific visualization and data visualization, except to quote the data visualization article in referring to two as related.  This is documented in Friendly (2008), the source referenced in the data visualization article, so I cited it here.  Finally, I added "data visualization" to the "See also" list.
Banazir (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data Visualization, Statistical Graphics, and Scientific Visualization 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: There is a consensus that there is no primary topic for "Visualis/zation" and therefore, to move Visualisation (disambiguation) to Visualization.   (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Visualization (graphics) →  – Well, this is now a mess. We have 2 redirects, Visualisation and Visualization, that target Visualization (graphics) which therefore has a page title that is unnecessary disambiguation, and a disambiguation page Visualisation (disambiguation). Option A if Visualization (graphics) is the primary topic: move Visualization (graphics) to Visualization over the redirect, and retarget Visualisation there. Swap Visualisation (disambiguation) with Visualization (disambiguation) for consistency. Option B if there is no primary topic: move Visualisation (disambiguation) to Visualization over the redirect, and retarget Visualisation and Visualisation (disambiguation) there. Please state "Support Option A" or "Support Option B". For clarity I have assumed that the "z" form is acceptable and should be used consistently in preference to the "s" form: it might be easier if this particular RM avoids that debate and concentrates on determining whether or not there is a primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 February 2021