About "comments from yesterday's meetings "

Gregory A Jackson (gjackson@mit.EDU)
Thu, 01 Jun 1995 08:45:50 EDT

> 1) I think Greg's rewrite about the "other axis" is good, but
> it is important to emphasize that the computation axis is, in some
> sense, a well--defined paradigm for many years now, whereas there has
> been a sea change on the connectivity axis. Hence our focus.
> I'm also a little nervous about Greg's choice of visualization
> (rather than simulation). In many engineering fields there is a
> currently a feeling that visualization and graphics is being oversold,
> and that we have to progress to more relevant "outputs" that directly
> relate to design decisions. I would be happier if we said the best
> current examples are "simulation and advanced visualization".

Tony's point is good, and although I obviously don't agree fully with it (both
as to well-definedness and visualization versus simulation -- and this is yet
another example of a productive and interesting disagreement which should be
highlighting), I have no problems with changes such as Tony suggests.

> 2) I think that we should include a link to MATLAB as a *simple example*
> of combined--axis operation. This would illustrate Greg's point, is
> relatively simply done (at least by Ed and his team), and would
> counterbalance some of the other cuter but more gratuitous examples...

I think the .m file/Web helper example is illustrative, but weak because it's
rather one-way and presumes duplicated rather than distributed computing. I'm
much more taken with kinds of collaborative access to remote tools that we see
increasingly in design. But certainly a weak example is better than none.

> 4) Although Greg's paragraph hints at how the web may give us new ways
> to do things, I would prefer a separate paragraph later that summarizes
> the comments that Bill and Peter made: that there may be situations in
> which we can do more than simply put old content in a new medium. From
> my mundane engineering perspective, one example might be haptic
> interfaces, which could fundamentally change the notion of "physical
> intuition" and design decision making. (Haptic interfaces could also
> turn out to be most useful for non-educational (teleoperation)
> applications, but I don't think we need that level of detail.) Examples
> from architecture, history, and literature would probably be even more
> enlightening...

Amen!

> 5) I agree with Bob that we should replace Long-term recommendations
> with an issues or questions sections. As Bob suggested, this could start
> with possible scenarios --- from M.I.T. as it is today, with distance
> education a complete flop, to an M.I.T. of the future which is simply an
> imprimatur of excellence conferred upon a faculty and student body which
> shares no physical space at any time. Questions as to how M.I.T. might
> respond could follow. The earlier emails from Chris and Dick contain
> many of the relevant comments.

If we do this, we need to cover other dimensions in addition to distance
education. Our focus on distance education is in many ways a function of our
Web-centricity, and a broader focus would have caused us to address more
diverse scenarios.

> I realize this delays release of the report by a little bit, but in the
> unlikely event that somebody actually takes our work seriously...

Within reason, good is better than fast.

gj
e40-359a/MIT/Cambridge MA 02139
voice: (617) 253-3712
fax: (617) 258-8736
url: http://web.mit.edu/gjackson/www/
key: pgp@pgp.mit.edu