1 / 4

Rosenblum Response

Rosenblum Response. Larry Rosenblum National Science Foundation (response represents my individual opinion; does not represent the Foundation or any official government position). Response List – Initial Thoughts . What’s right about the report: Excellent emphasis on need for Evaluation

thom
Download Presentation

Rosenblum Response

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rosenblum Response Larry Rosenblum National Science Foundation (response represents my individual opinion; does not represent the Foundation or any official government position)

  2. Response List – Initial Thoughts • What’s right about the report: • Excellent emphasis on need for • Evaluation • Integration with area specialists who are users • Good focus on education • Suggested modification of grant review criteria would help field • Suggests multi-agency approach, which may be way to accomplish goals • Good write-up on medical issues • Good discussion about how federal funding stops short of development into usable software • Roadmap is good vision

  3. Response • What’s wrong about the report: • Does not make strong case for funding in a difficult funding period (excepting NIH, whose budget is doubling) • Where are the new, exciting areas? • Many science, engineering applications not well discussed • In introduction, not clear what has changed over 15+ years • Overemphasis on medical visualization • Example of evaluation using oncologists is questionable, because for certain fields (e.g., medicine, sonar) experience of user is key to acceptance • Application spotlight is health costs, medicine, vis. for public, education, and a brief discussion of sensors … where is the balance • Although discussion of evaluation is generally good, usability studies should be inserted at start of work and maintained throughout • Fostering interdisciplinary research sounds good but is hard in practice for reasons we all know; can we point to success stories as “pathway” • Does K-6 education really make sense? • In DoD funding, ONR is missing (more funds than NRO and ARO)

  4. Finding in section 1.6.2 re. stuck in transition could be an argument for stopping funding • Infovis called most impoverished (in light of NVAC) • Wasn’t original intent to lay out status w/o asking for funding?? • What’s missing about the report: • Little about visual analytics – need to make case why NSF must drive long-term research in support of NVAC • Mobile visualization missing, but this is exciting new area • ONR workshop/cg&a report/book in 1993/94 lead to ONR program in volume visualization and subsequently mobile visualization; in general, could use appendix of funded programs • In application section, where is fluid flow, molecular modeling, engineering design, mobile visualization, geophysics exploration, homeland security, and finance (just to name a few) • Visualization in education: Perhaps work such as Jim Blinn’s math/physics educational films circa 1989 can be used to demonstrate pedantic potential

More Related