[Gegl-developer] Re: DAGs make users' eyes cross

[Daniel Rogers]

On Oct 17, 2006, at 9:15 PM, neota at softhome.net wrote:

> What about a connected widgets visualization? Like some sound  
> studio software works with. Boxes with input/output  
> 'plugs'/'sockets' connected by 'wires' -- boxes might be color  
> coded (eg yellow for clone, blue for transform..)
> click+drag on box to move, ctrl+click to clone. (click to rename?)
> click on socket, click again on opposite type of socket to connect.
> Click on connected socket to reconnect this end of the wire to a  
> different socket.
> Click (or ctrl-click?) on wire to disconnect both ends.
> Right-click (as in bauxite) to add nodes or do other misc ops.
> This model might be slower to navigate with many nodes though.
> The main (and only?) flaw of a tree-view visualization that is  
> obviously a DAG is lack of detailed visual grouping, which is  
> addressed by the above model.

That is precisely the model used in labview, much sound studio  
software (like ProTools), high end compositing tools (like Shake),  
high end 3d modeling tools, etc.  It is a DAG.  Yes, it is color  
coded, but there is no rule that says a DAG can't be color coded.  My  
real point, which I was going to get too, is that for every example  
of people using a spreadsheet model (1, really) I can point out why  
it's use is eventually discouraged, and point out 5 other examples  
where is DAG interface is used in the real world.

-- 
Daniel