This is an old revision of the document!
Core motivations
Reasons to reinvigorate qfwfq from a FoAM perspective.
Cross/inter disciplinarity between fields
As an approach to connecting diverse fields (biology, architecture, physics, media art) with some specific common problems:
- The increase of data volume and complexity and the requirement for designing processes (programming) to deal with it all.
- The rise of computational solutions to problems in general has left some areas behind - eg. not all areas of biology have easy access to bioinformatics departments.
- Not having enough of an understanding of the processes carried out on a data set can lead to problematic interpretations.
Currently the approach to a solution is a myriad of domain specific tools, languages and environments - is there a way to design tools and practices that can cross these domains? The project needs at least two distant fields or application areas involved to prove this.
One approach is applying lessons learned in education, graphics and games design with visual programming and applying them in a more general way.
- Scratch: http://scratch.mit.edu/
- Pixar's SLIM: https://renderman.pixar.com/products/tools/rms-slim.html
Why is this needed? The Importance of a Code Literate Culture
“the code literate of our society are mostly white men” … “code written today is not representative of our society” http://rarlindseysmash.com/index.php?n=1309736919
With the introduction of algorithms into every part of our lives, diversification of programming is an important goal in itself:
- Is the lack of diversity in programmers a self perpetuating situation?
- Is the specialisation of information technology into separate fields problematic?
- What is it about programming languages or it's culture that is problematic for some?
Aims/Unique selling points
Our aims are to design a tool/language/environment that crosses disciplines by:
- Covering multiple levels of abstraction
- Embodying multiple forms of representation
- …
Possible Methodologies
Measurement of success by the use of workshops with individuals from the target fields. They could be given problems (perhaps outside of their field) to solve, initially studying ways in which their approaches differ - later applying the developed software/tool/process and studying the results.
Previous qfwfq/vapour feedback
Good bits:
- Scalability/differing levels of absraction (still?) original
- Use of real application
- Mixed reality needs sound development methods
- Broad range of partners (CS, HCI, M/AR)
Missing bits:
- Why such performance is not currently achieved
- ST approach vague
- Measurable goals and targets needed
- Concrete info on technical approach (proof of concept demonstrator)
- Generalisation of results needed
- Detail existing approaches, advantages/limitations
- Underestimated human resources
- Impact to application needs justification
- Scientific impact need justification
Questions
Why are we better placed to tackle this than CS or bioinformatics or architecture departments? Some way to present diversity as strength?
Links
Bioinformatics
- KDE Bioscience: http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~vc100/papers/KDE_Bioscience.pdf
- BioBike: http://biobike.csbc.vcu.edu/
- Commercial: http://www.inforsense.com/
davegriffiths