Contact us Heritage collections Image license terms
HOME ACL ACD ICF SUS DCS G&A STARLINK Literature
Further reading □ Foreword □ Contents □ Preface □ Prologue □ Acknowledgements □ Participants □ 1. Introduction □ A. Guedj □ B. Hopgood □ C. Crestin □ D. Warman □ E. Sabin □ F. Encarnacao □ G. Dunn □ H. Bono □ I. Newell □ J. Foley □ K. Foley □ L. Sancha □ M. Sancha □ N. Sancha □ 2. Working documents □ Current position □ Graphics primitives □ Core □ Attributes □ Structure □ Methodology: Structure □ Design □ Input □ Transformations □ Formal Specification □ Conceptual Framework □ IFIP Report □ Recommendations □ Future
C&A INF CCD CISD Archives Contact us Heritage archives Image license terms

Search

   
⟶ ACD ⟶ Literature ⟶ Books ⟶ Methodology in Computer Graphics
⟶ ACD ⟶ Literature ⟶ Books ⟶ Methodology in Computer Graphics
ACL ACD C&A INF CCD CISD Archives
Further reading ⇓

□ Foreword □ Contents □ Preface □ Prologue □ Acknowledgements □ Participants □ 1. Introduction □ A. Guedj □ B. Hopgood □ C. Crestin □ D. Warman □ E. Sabin □ F. Encarnacao □ G. Dunn □ H. Bono □ I. Newell □ J. Foley □ K. Foley □ L. Sancha □ M. Sancha □ N. Sancha □ 2. Working documents □ Current position □ Graphics primitives □ Core □ Attributes □ Structure □ Methodology: Structure □ Design □ Input □ Transformations □ Formal Specification □ Conceptual Framework □ IFIP Report □ Recommendations □ Future

Considerations for Methodology

R.M. Dunn

Basic Position

Methodology for computer graphics should be agreed upon that serves to further efforts towards several goals. At the same time, the methodology agreed to for computer graphics should also have the property of not constraining innovation in and application of computer graphics technology and systems.

Position with regard to goals

Goals for computer graphics methodology are, in part, similar to some of the goals for other areas of information processing. Wherever possible, the agreed upon methodology should foster inter-changeability of hardware elements of computer graphics systems. Attainment of this goal would serve to reduce cost of hardware and provide for the richest variety of hardware configurations from which to tailor systems capabilities.

The agreed upon methodology should foster the exchange of software between computer graphics systems. This will also serve to reduce the cost of making computer graphics systems operational. In addition, portable software will add to the capabilities of a given system and will serve to make software useful while system hardware evolves as technology advances.

Lastly, the methodology for computer graphics should support virtually all types of data, processes and purposes that may provide a context for the use of current computer graphics.

Position with regard to constraints

It is equally important that the agreed upon methodology for computer graphics does not constrain developing technology, systems and concepts of applications that form the basis for future elaboration.

It is useful to state the obvious - the computer graphics methodology must not be biased against the types of images that may fall within the range of computer graphics. Line drawings, text, half tones, polychromatic entities, and many other types of images all must have ample support within the methodology.

In a similar vein, the methodology must not limit the types of image representation used as a vehicle within the processors supporting the graphics activity. A broad range of possibilities for image cells, image symbols and their manner of inter-relation will increase the facility with which computer graphics may be introduced into new areas.

There are a broad range of internal methods for transformation of data supporting graphic images. General agreement is limited on which internal transformations should be used and in what manner. Computer graphics methodology that does not support several alternatives may curtail full exploration of methods that would eventually lead to different conclusions about transform mechanization and system architecture within the graphics hardware.

As yet, no one type of device for creating images is equally suitable for all types of images. Our methodology must be open to support graphics devices using strokes, rasters, variable retentivity of the image, electronic or hard copy images, or any other practical means for creating images.

Analogously, exploration of types of devices for analog, digital and symbolic input to graphics is still receiving considerable attention. Preferences are still mainly subjective and work on the human factors of input and interaction mechanisms is undergoing expansion. Our agreed methodology would do the field a grave disservice if it imposed constraints in this area.

Whether or not Meyer and Sutherland took LSI technology into account when they spoke of the wheel of re-incarnation may be open to debate. The current fact is that microprocessors are causing changes in the computing power available within terminals. Our methodology must not limit the types of display terminals, that may receive the full support of the benefits of international agreement.

Lastly, we must recognize that system configurations for computer graphics are many and varied. Furthermore, each currently practical configuration probably has many supporters who have expended considerable energy to bring it into use. What is certain is that we are through experimenting with the current systems or inventing new systems for further consideration. Agreements on methodology for computer graphics should not place relevant system configurations in a position outside the community of agreement.

⇑ Top of page
© Chilton Computing and UKRI Science and Technology Facilities Council webmaster@chilton-computing.org.uk
Our thanks to UKRI Science and Technology Facilities Council for hosting this site