Re: Graphics instead of words

[Chris Despopoulos <cud -at- arrakis -dot- es>]

I have a general rule of thumb when deciding whether or not
to express an idea via graphics (movies, sound, etc.).  If
you can express the idea in fewer actual bits via the
graphic, use it.  Actually, were it possible to quantify the
variables (I believe it is not possible), I would use an
equation similar to the following to quantify the weight of
the graphic in more detail:

Weight = Bits + Cognative Load + Page Area + Ingestion Time
- Benefit of Emphasis

I know...  This really comes across as pretentious crap.
But it works for me.  (And also, I'm sure I'm offending
*somebody* on the bleeding edge of multimedia.  What fun.)

What is difficult to quantify is the cognative load.
(Sounds impressive in coctail parties, eh?)  What I mean by
that is, how long would the average reader ponder the
expression of the specific idea?  The longer he/she takes,
the greater the load.  There are plenty of ideas that can
stop a reader dead if they are written out, but that are
effortlessly understood via graphics.  Timing skew when a
clock signal makes the transition from zero to one comes to
mind.

Anyway, if you can work out reasonable approximations of the
weight of different midia (i.e. text vs. graphic) for the
same idea, then you might be able guess which is more
effective.

Given this rule of thumb, I rarely believe that movies or
sound are worth while.  Too many bits, too much time to
ingest.  By the same rule of thumb, I would guess the FIND
icon would fail...  Judging by the reaction of your readers.

BTW, in many manuals I will use an icon for a Note, Tip, or
Warning.  I believe these pay off because of the Benefit of
Emphasis.

Just my 0.02 Euros...                               cud

ps
The above is really a proof that one can always invent
jargon to justify whatever he wants.