Visual representation of information as communicative practice

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 65, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 2233-2247

  Snyder, Jaime ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

collaboration; human communications; visual materials

Indexed keywords

DATA MINING; DATA VISUALIZATION; IMAGE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS; IMAGE RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION SCIENCE; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MODAL ANALYSIS; VISUALIZATION;

COLLABORATION; DATA VISUALIZATION TOOLS; DESIGN AND EVALUATIONS; FACE-TO-FACE CONVERSATION; HUMAN COMMUNICATIONS; IMAGE RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS; INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES; INFORMATION VISUALIZATION;

SEARCH ENGINES;

EID: 84938704484     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23103     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Amann, K., &, Knorr-Cetina, K., (1988). The fixation of (visual) evidence. Human Studies, 11 (2/3), 133-169.
2. Arnheim, R., (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3. Beaudoin, J.E., &, Brady, J.E., (2011). Finding visual information: a study of image resources used by archaeologists, architects, art historians, and artists. Art Documentation, 30 (2), 24-36.
4. Bertin, J., (1983). Semiology of graphics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
5. Burgoon, J.K., Buller, D.B., &, Floyd, K., (2001). Does participation affect deception success? Human Communication Research, 27 (4), 503-534.
6. Burgoon, J.K., Bonito, J.A., Ramirez, A., Dunbar, N.E., Kam, K., &, Fischer, J., (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52 (3), 657-676.
7. Charmaz, K., (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In, R.M. Emerson, (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109-126). Prospect Heights, IL: University of California, Waveland Press.
8. Clark, H.H., (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Datta, R., Joshi, D., Li, J., &, Wang, J.Z., (2008). Image retrieval: Ideas, influences, and trends of the new age. ACM Computing Surveys, 40 (2).
10. Dikovitskaya, M., (2005). Visual culture: The study of the visual after the cultural turn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Elkins, J., (1999). The domain of images. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
12. Ellis, G., &, Dix, A., (2006). An explorative analysis of user evaluation studies in information visualisation. Proceedings of BELIV 2006: AVI Workshop, pp. 1-7.
13. Fox, P., &, Hendler, J., (2011). Changing the equation on scientific data visualization. Science, 331, 705-708.
14. Goffman, E., (1974). Frame analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
15. Goffman, E., (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25 (1/2), 1-29.
16. Goodman, N., (1968). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
17. Goodwin, C., (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96 (3), 606-633.
18. Goodwin, C., (2000). Gesture, aphasia, and interaction. In, D. McNeill, (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 84-98). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
19. Goodwin, C., (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In, S. Kita, (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 217-241). Edison, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Goodwin, C., (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18 (1), 53-73.
21. Gumperz, J.J., (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
22. Guthrie, R.D., (2005). The nature of paleolithic art. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
23. Hanks, W.F., (1996). Language & communicative practices. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
24. Harrigan, J.A., (2005). Proxemics, kinesics and gaze. In, J.A. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, &, K.R. Scherer, (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp. 137-198). New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., &, Luff, P., (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
26. Heer, J., Viégas, F.B., &, Wattenberg, M., (2009). Voyagers and voyeurs: Supporting asynchronous collaborative information visualization. Communications of the ACM, 52 (1), 87-97.
27. Huang, W., Eades, P., Hong, S.-H., (2008). Beyond time and error: A cognitive approach to the evaluation of graph drawings. Paper presented at BELIV '08, Florence, Italy.
28. Isenberg, P., Elmqvist, N., Scholtz, J., Cernea, D., Ma, K.-L., &, Hagen, H., (2011). Collaborative visualization: Definition, challenges, and research agenda. Information Visualization, 10 (4), 310-329.
29. Jaffe, A., (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
30. Johnstone, B., (2000). Qualitative methods in sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
31. Kress, G., &, van Leeuwen, T., (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York: Routledge.
32. Latour, B., (1990). Drawing things together. In, M. Lynch, &, S. Woolgar, (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Levine, P., &, Scollon, R., (2004). Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
34. Lynch, M., (1988). The externalized retina: selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. Human Studies, 11, 201-234.
35. Makri, S., &, Warwick, C., (2010). Information for inspiration: Understanding architects' information seeking and use behaviors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 61 (9), 1745-1770.
36. Manusov, V., &, Patterson, M.L., (2006). The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
37. Mathison, S., (2009). Seeing is believing: The credibility of image-based research and evaluation. In, S.I. Donaldon, C.A. Christie, &, M.M. Mark, (Eds.), What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? (pp. 181-196). London: Sage Publications.
38. McCay-Peet, L,. &, Toms, E., (2009). Image use within the work task model: Images as information and illustration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 60 (12), 2416-2429.
39. Mitchell, C., (2011). Doing visual research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Nakatani, C.H., Grosz, B.J., Ahn, D.D., &, Hirschberg, J., (1995). Instructions for annotating discourses. Technical Report Number TR-21-95. Cambridge, MA: Center for Research in Computing Technology, Harvard University.
41. Norris, S., (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. London: Routledge.
42. Norris, S., &, Jones, R.H., (2005). Discourse in action: Introducing mediated discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.
43. Ochs, E., (1979). Transcription as theory. Developmental Pragmatics, 43-72.
44. Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., &, Jacoby, S., (1996). "When I come down I'm in the domain state": Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicsts. In, E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, &, S. Thompson, (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
45. Rose, G., (2007). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
46. Rose, G., &, Tolia-Kelly, D., (Eds.). (2012). Visuality/materiality: Images, objects and practices. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing.
47. Scollon, R., (1998). Mediated discourse as social interaction. London: Longman.
48. Shneiderman, B., &, Plaisant, C., (2006). Strategies for evaluating information visualization tools: Multi-dimensional in-depth long-term case studies. Paper presented at BELIV 06, Venice, Italy.
49. Snyder, J., (2012). Activities & artifacts: The dual nature of image-making in communicative practice. Proceedings of the 2012 iConference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp. 10-17.
50. Snyder, J., (2013). Drawing practices in image-enabled collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2013), San Antonio, TX, February 23-27.
51. Streeck, J., &, Kallmeyer, W., (2001). Interaction as inscription. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 465-490.
52. Tannen, D., (1993). Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
53. Tannen, D., &, Wallat, C., (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In, D. Tannen, (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 57-76). New York: Oxford University Press.
54. Tibbetts, P., (1990). Representation and the realist-constructivist controversy. In, M. Lynch, &, S. Woolgar, (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 69-84). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Tufte, E.R., (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
56. Tufte, E.R., (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
57. Tufte, E.R., (1997). Visual explanations. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
58. van Dijk, T.A., (1981). Episodes as units of discourse analysis. In, D. Tannen, (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 177-195). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
59. Walny, J., Carpendale, S., Riche, N.H., Venolia, G., &, Fawcett, P., (2011). Visual thinking in action: visualizations as used on whiteboards. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17 (12), 2508-2517.
60. Ware, C., (2000). Information visualization: Perception for design. San Francisco: Morgan Kauffman.
61. Yoon, J.W., &, Chung, E.K., (2011). Understanding image needs in daily life by analyzing questions in a social Q&A site. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 62 (11), 2201-2213.