[MG] Votespace social map

[Michael Allan]

Thomas von der Elbe wrote:
> > http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/crossforum/vote/_/3.xht
> I like mockup II very much! If this is possible to code, then we
> will have something very impressive, I feel! ...

I think so, too.  If we add the callouts and tie them to C's diff
feed, then it'll be obvious from the first glance what we're showing.
We're showing real people, alive and kicking.  (Who else shows that?)

> ... How do you think: if we climb up the tree, does the map pan the
> new node into the centre of the screen? It must, right? Because it
> may happen, that you go south 5 levels. Thats too much for the
> screen then, right?

Yes.  Max view size will be roughly 4-5 circles in a line (6-7 for
state/world issues).  That's too large for a typical viewport/screen,
so we'll need to pan.  I think it should be automatic, as you suggest;
entirely automatic so there's no pan control (keep it simple).

> With panning we can create (use) endless amounts of space. We
> theoretically wouldnt even need to overlap at all (like currently in
> the picture linked above). The smaller angle for the 20 voters of
> Fr. could be compensated with a longer radius. ... just to mention.

I started like that (angle of 9 and a 180 arc), but I think this is an
improvement.  I actually like how it curls back on itself.  It's
reminescent of natural patterns in leaves or mollusc shells.  The eye
interprets the overlap as depth.

The source is here if anyone wants to improve on it:
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/crossforum/vote/VotespaceV.svg

> Another version of creating endless amount of space would be zoom,
> though. With it something like here becomes possible too, i.e. full
> circles of sub-voters, right?:
> 
> http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project_details.cfm?id=744&index=744&domain=

Yes.  Call that a "fractal" design, as opposed to our "radial whorl".

> One would just zoom in deeper and deeper. And like in this picuture
> and like proposed before by The_User in the chat, we could have 2
> circles around the centre, which would give us even more
> space. Would voters feel bad, if they were positioned in the second
> row for no obvious reason? (BTW, is sorting of voters by number of
> votes like in the current vote-space theoretically still possible or
> not?)  But with the zoom we would loose some of the oversight, or
> not? ...

It would probably be OK.  If the zoom were tied to the back button,
the user could easily back out and re-orient.  Same as with our
geomap: http://metagovernment.tuxfamily.org/crossforum/#c=DG
(Hit + on the left till you're lost, then hit the back button.)

The fractal attempts to show the entire tree or forest in all of its
detail.  So it's both broad in scope and narrow in detail.  If we
needed such a view, we could code it as separate map.  But I don't
think it should be our first map.  It isn't as appealing.  It's like a
microscope.  It moves you closer to tiny dots that are flattened out
on a glass slide.  I'd rather the tiny dots on the periphery moved
closer to me, while the big ones in the middle receded.  Then it would
have depth and height.  The most beautiful views would then be the
highest ones, where the voters are.

The most elegant way to display quantitative data is often the
simplest and most direct way (I agree with Edward Tufte): just show
the numbers.  That's what we do.  We also show the text of the names.
I think the combination of numerals and name glyphs is particularly
informative and attractive, more so than dots.

> ... Just an idea, I dont know, what is better. What do you think?

I think the radial whorl is better for the first map.  It's more than
I'd hoped for.  Thanks too, because it's mostly your design!

Should we code it?  (I'll start with some panning tests, because I've
never panned SVG.)

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/



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