- From: Georgi Kobilarov <gkob@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:18:52 +0200
- To: "David Huynh" <dfhuynh@alum.mit.edu>
- Cc: <public-lod@w3.org>, <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Hi David, thanks for your message :) In the meantime, I took a closer look at parallax. There are many nifty little UI features I like, such as the "what did just happen?" message, the label showing the particular related resources in a set of connected resources, e.g. browsing from people to locations and displaying the related people for each ___location, although I'm somehow missing an interaction feature there. And I'd like to say that in my opinion parallax's core interaction model of browsing connected *sets* of resources is a incredible important contribution to the area of graph-based UIs! I haven't highlighted that enough in my first message (mainly because I knew your former prototype of a "nested faceted browser", which has already demonstrated such an interaction model), but I'd like people to recognize how important that aspect is for the future of graph-based data UIs! > Indeed, initially, the facets and the connections were not > separated. Then, from user feedback, I split them apart, making those > two conceptually different features independent and visually separate. I've been thinking about your point of facets and connections being conceptually different features. In my opinion, they are not conceptually different. I see that it makes sense (or is even necessary) to make them independent and separate in an interface with uni-directional filtering, but *conceptually* (including a possible bidirectional filtering) they are not different. They both present connected (via a particular property or via a "complex" function) values/objects, grouped by different dimensions, for a given set of resources. On top of that, there are interactions with the facets such as using them as filters or browsing their values. I think, the need to separate filtering and browsing is a result of limiting to uni-directional filtering along the graph. It might make sense to handle value properties (numbers, geolocations, ...) differently than object properties (resources/instances), but as far as I can see, that wasn't your point. And in your NFB prototype, you haven't made that distinction. So, could you elaborate why you're now making that distinction? > So if I had it my way, they would be together; but by listening to > other > people, they are now separate. I would love to have a look at that earlier version ;) Cheers, Georgi -- Georgi Kobilarov Freie Universit�t Berlin www.georgikobilarov.com > -----Original Message----- > From: David Huynh [mailto:dfhuynh@alum.mit.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 6:36 AM > To: Georgi Kobilarov > Cc: public-lod@w3.org; semantic-web@w3c.org > Subject: Re: freebase parallax: user interface for browsing graphs of > data > > Hi Georgi, > > I'm glad you like it! And I'm glad you said what you didn't like about > it :-) Indeed, initially, the facets and the connections were not > separated. Then, from user feedback, I split them apart, making those > two conceptually different features independent and visually separate. > So if I had it my way, they would be together; but by listening to > other > people, they are now separate. Who knows, by listening to even more > people, I might put them back together again. :-) > > Which is to say that I'm really not committed to any particular UI > design. And it's not accurate to say that I don't believe in the > usability of bidirectional filtering. I do recognize the desire for > that, but I just didn't think I had the right UI design for it at the > time, and even now. So I chose not to support bidirectional filtering > in > Parallax, at least until I figure out a UI solution that I'm > comfortable > with. But you might as well beat me to it :-) And that's great, too! > The > more experimentation, the better! Looking forward to see what you come > up with! > > Cheers! > > David > > Georgi Kobilarov wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > absolute fantastic work! > > > > I very much like the way of selecting connection (and filter) from a > > list grouped by type. Although I'm missing the option to select all > > resources just based on type (without selecting a particular > > predicate/relation). E.g. looking at presidents and then selecting > > ___location instead of having to select ___location (birth) or ___location > > (death). > > > > What I don't like is the separation of instance-based faceted filters > > (left hand side) and connections (right hand side). > > I know that you don't believe in the usability of bidirectional > > filtering (e.g. starting with movies, pivoting to actors, filtering > on > > ___location, and then going *back* to movies to see a filtered set of > > movies). We've discussed that end of last year on the simile list. > I'll > > try to disprove that with a prototype of mine ;) > > > > Great to see that you're back with new brilliant UI work again!! > > > > Cheers, > > Georgi > > > > -- > > Georgi Kobilarov > > Freie Universit�t Berlin > > www.georgikobilarov.com > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: public-lod-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] > On > >> Behalf Of David Huynh > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:12 AM > >> To: public-lod@w3.org; semantic-web@w3c.org > >> Subject: freebase parallax: user interface for browsing graphs of > data > >> > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I've been exploring some user interface ideas for browsing graphs > (of > >> data in Freebase) in a user-friendly way, which I think might be > >> applicable to some of the data that you have. The screencast should > >> explain: > >> > >> http://mqlx.com/~david/parallax/ > >> > >> Please let me know what you think! > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> David > >> > > > >
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2008 15:19:37 UTC