[MG] Votespace social map

[Thomas von der Elbe]

Wow, thanks Alex!

What I helplessly tried to describe with words is the lower pic here:

http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project_details.cfm?id=744&index=744&domain=

This is not so practical in terms of space-usage, but looks very beautiful:

http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project_details.cfm?id=750&index=750&domain=

Thomas



On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:16, Alexander Praetorius wrote:
> If inspiration is needed:
> http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: start-bounces at metagovernment.org
> [mailto:start-bounces at metagovernment.org] On Behalf Of Thomas von der Elbe
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:01 PM
> To: Metagovernment Project
> Subject: Re: [MG] Votespace social map
>
>
>> The radial layout is Thomas's idea.  The angle for each voter will be
>> calculated from an alphabetical hash of the username (poorly simulated
>> here by random numbers).  So if a voter withdrew his vote, then he'd
>> vanish from the tree, but there'd be no other effect on the vote
>> structure.  This kind of stability is required in order to support
>> rapid animation across historical vote structures, e.g. when sliding
>> time controls backward and foreward.
> Mike, this thing here made me thinking: http://debategraph.org/home
> It does change all the time, but it also very fast opens up a new node.
> If the time control was sliding backwards 20 events and it would
> directly jump to it and not show the ones in between, it should work, or
> not?
>
> Then, to have a fixed angle per person has the clear advantage of being
> easy to recognise even after other things changed. But a disadvantage is
> the overlapping. Now the old tree-map did also change in case of vote
> shifts, couldnt it be possible here too? And have all voters in a circle
> with the same distance to each other ... sorted by number of votes?
>
> Then, with this space around each voter, when climbing one node up in
> the tree, it would not need to overlap others anymore too. It could just
> zoom into the map. So like you suggested before, have all (millions)
> voters visible in the first picture already, only that they be very tiny
> the further away from the endcandidate. And to really see them one would
> have to zoom in. Always a circle of voters around each voter, but the
> circle most far up in one branch would not even touch the circles of the
> neighbours branch. It would be really 2-dimensional whereas the current
> proposal is semi-3-dimensional.
>
>> Myself, I'm starting to think that the inverse video in the theatre
>> app could be a mistake.  It could cause us trouble in future: hard on
>> the eyes; hard to ensure that a faded background graphic is still
>> visible across all hardware.
> By "inverse video" you mean the ability to slide the time contral
> backwards? I think this is very very useful, isnt it?
>
> Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
> http://www.metagovernment.org/
> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
> Manage subscription:
> http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
> http://www.metagovernment.org/
> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
> Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/attachments/20110412/208849eb/attachment.html>


Originally posted to the mailing list of the Metagovernment Project:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org