Eye Path Intentionality

Once you notice this it’s hard not to think about it. You see it everywhere. Fundamental things about how vision works. I don’t mean retinal absorption of light, for example. Although yeah, sure, that’s there. That’s part of it. Turn on the TV and no doubt you’ll be presented with some science show getting into the intricacies of the retinal structure of the eyeball, and transmission through nerves into the brain and so on.

But this explains nothing. It’s not that it’s wrong. It’s just not enough. And if you’ve been around long enough you’ve seen the same shows presenting the same information over and over again for decades. Which would be fine if they didn’t stop too soon. There are more questions to ask and more things to notice about vision. If you stop too soon, and just keep repeating technicalities, it’s a bore.

There’s so much more.

I’ve written on this blog before about some of the fundamentals of vision. Here are a few. In the first one, pay attention to the 5 functions of vision listed and described as they pertain to technical drawing vis a vis mental models and digital models; and notice this part of the post:

think… about what a technical drawing looks like when we see it in our mind’s eye, in-situ within the mental model. We wobble back and forth in an arc around it, in context within the fuzzy mental model when visualizing it there. Maybe you notice your eyes sort of look downward (it’s true for me anyway) when we visualize this mentally. Try it and notice what you’re doing the next time you’re in that flow state fully engaged with this kind of visualization.

Here’s the post:

3D is not the evolution of 2D

Yeah, actually, no, 3D is not the evolution of 2D. Although, yes, the pull-quote below is a key concept we’ve all had in mind the last 20 years in architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC). 3D is the evolution of 2D. 2D is a primitive representation of the 3D reality. Many people can not read or understand … Continue reading 3D is not the evolution of 2D

Related aspects of vision continue in other posts in this blog, including this one and others. And this, observations about vision, is, in general, too, of course. It’s not just about devices for visual engagement with digital models, or the nature of technical illustration and its action as a device for visual engagement with models mental and digital. Nor is it just about the evolution of that device as I propose here as V3.0 TGN Development.

No. It’s about the way vision works in general. The next two posts touch on aspects of vision that we all see in ordinary daily life. No one really knows, I would say, how vision works. But there are things worth noticing about it. And we can talk about those. And we can design equipment for visual engagement with those observations in mind.

AUTONOMIC AND SOMATIC VISUAL PROCESSING

WE MUST GRAPPLE WITH SOME FACTS:

  1. To understand anything, simple or complex, we depend on the formation of an adequate mental model.
  2. Effective mental model formation for simple tasks is autonomic and never fails.
  3. Effective mental model formation for complex tasks is somatic, requires conscious effort, through technique that offloads cognitive burden into a suitable externalization in some medium.
  4. The externalizations are un-interpretable (i.e., meaningless) until re-internalized through somatic cognitive effort, in the mental model.
  5. VIEWS, TWEENERS, MEMORY, WOBBLE (see here) are aspects of the externalization and its re-internalization in the mental model.
  6. The form taken by the externalization is subject to constraints inherent in human perception and cognition. Among the constraints are the nature of view selection, the role of views in mental model formation, and limits on the frequency and amplitude of human cognitive investment in visual attention on those views governed by the human visual attention sine curve. (see here)
  7. In architecture, engineering, construction (AEC) and similar fields, the medium of externalization is technical drawing in the traditional form we’re familiar with.
  8. The technical drawing is “hosted” somewhere, e.g.: on paper or some digital equivalent, an electronic sheet, a CAD file, a PDF, etc.
  9. The trend of calling for “…the end of drawing (7), because models” ignores the relevant facts above and the potential for useful change as follows:
  10. There is in fact, no reason to keep paper or its digital equivalent as the externalization host. The digital model is a superior host.
  11. There is no reason to keep the externalization (external from the mental model) locked in its traditional form (technical drawing as we know it). The form of the externalization’s expression, hosted within the digital model, can evolve to exceed (bigly) the traditional form’s support for adequate mental model formation, therefore helping people more quickly reach adequate understanding of complex tasks amenable to visual interpretation.
  12. A proposal for this (11) is linked below.

There is a domain that has developed a century’s worth of careful attention to what can be called:

eye path intentionality

The film industry.

If you want an introduction to innovations developed in the film industry for camera motion, Mark Cousins’ 11 hour documentary, The Story of Film: An Odyssey, I recommend it maximally.

This was on TV back in 2012 or so here in Sweden. And for years after that it was unavailable online. You had to buy a CD! But you can get it now at some of the usual places including Apple TV.

It’s fascinating to watch, spellbinding for the entire 11 hours. It covers many aspects of film from all over the world since the beginning, and has no shortage of observation about the care taken and the rich knowledgebase built up about eye path intentionality. And understanding the effect of that.