From the Editor This is a busy time of year for those involved in preparing for the annual SIGGRAPH conference. The conference proceedings are off to the printer at the same time that we are preparing this issue of Computer Graphics. The combination of a larger than usual issue and a heavier than usual workload contributed to a slight delay. In producing the newsletter, we do share your concern for timeliness, especially publishing time-sensitive material such as calls for participation and deadlines. However, you will find several items of interest that I believe are worth the wait. The annual publication of a bibliography of computer graphics literature has been supported by SIGGRAPH for several years now. In addition to the printed form of these citations, there is a machine-readable copy available from Baldev Singh, our references editor. The SIGGRAPH education committee continues to be very active. This month we publish their supplement to the directory of arts, architecture and design educational institutions. And below you will find a letter in response to the previous issue. We welcome the opportunity to publish such exchanges and invite you to write to the editor. Richard J. Beach SIGGRAPH Editor-in-Chief Beach.pa@Xerox.com Letters Response to ``Art for Sale?'' Darcy Gerbarg, CG 21(2) I want to thank you for your comments on the SIGGRAPH '87 8"X10" picture sets. With the hectic pace of producing SIGGRAPH '87, we sometimes do not communicate the efforts that occur in order to achieve the highest quality conference possible. There were several comments in your letter that I feel need clarification. I would like to take this opportunity to address several issues that you raised. The purpose of the picture sets is to provide a flexible distribution media for educational and motivational images. In addition, this media will give the contributing authors exposure and in some sense, ``honor.'' SIGGRAPH '87 is not producing these picture sets to make money. In order to ensure the highest possible quality at a reasonable cost, the SIGGRAPH '87 committee is conducting several experimental processes, for example, printing, photography, glazing images, etc. This is, and will continue to be, directed by our professional artist/designer. The images selected will be chosen by a committee including artists as well as scientists. Each contributor of the selected images will have given their full and written approval to use their image for the stated purpose. I believe your phrase, ``exploitation of images created by artists and scientists'' is inappropriate. The contributors will have given their consent to use their images in the manner outlined and we anticipate an enthusiastic response for this high honor. We are very attentive to quality and seek expert opinions on a routine (daily) basis in the selection, layout and production of all conference products, from print ads to cover designs. I look forward to the continued use of artistic talents in this manner and hope that this letter clarifies our commitment to maintaining the well established SIGGRAPH tradition of quality. Jim Thomas SIGGRAPH '87 Co-chair Graphics Interface '88 Call for Participation Graphics Interface '88, sponsored by the Canadian Man-Computer Communications Society, is the fourteenth Canadian conference devoted to computer graphics and interactive techniques and is the oldest regularly scheduled computer graphics conference in the world. Now an annual conference including a film festival and tutorials, Graphics Interface has established a reputation for a high-quality technical program. The conference will be held June 610, 1988 at the Edmonton Convention Centre in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Requests for information about the conference should be directed to the General Chairman: Wayne A. Davis Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H1 CANADA (403) 432-3976 Proposals for tutorials should be sent to the General Chairman by November 15, 1987. Submissions for the electronic theatre must be sent to Mark Green of the University of Alberta by April 1, 1988. Submissions of cover illustrations for the proceedings must be sent to Marceli Wein of the National Research Council by March 1, 1988. Technical Program Submissions are invited for the technical program of GI '88. We are looking for innovative papers describing research results and applications experience in computer graphics, including the following areas: · image synthesis & realism · shading & rendering · geometric modeling · computer animation · interactive techniques · graphics for CAD/CAM · user interfaces · graphics & office automation · computer cartography · image processing · medical graphics · graphics in education Send four copies of a draft paper by October 31, 1987 to the Program Chairman: Darwyn R. Peachey Department of Computational Science, University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 0W0 CANADA (306) 966-4909 peacheyd@sask.bitnet or peachey@sask.uucp Authors will be notified by February 1, 1988 and camera-ready papers will be due March 28, 1988. Program Committee Brian Barsky, UC Berkeley Franklin Crow, Xerox PARC Tom Duff, AT&T Bell Labs Alain Fournier, U of Toronto Mark Green, U of Alberta Przemek Prusinkiewicz, U of Regina Peter Tanner, U of Waterloo Daniel Thalmann, U of Montreal Colin Ware, U of New Brunswick Marceli Wein, National Research Council Announcement of Conference on Office Information Systems Palo Alto, CA March 2325, 1988 Sponsored by ACM SIGOIS, IEEE Computer Society TC-OA In cooperation with IFIP WG 8.4 COIS is a conference devoted to intelligent processing of information in organizations. Topics of interest include: information systems, effects of technology on human organizations, interconnect, distributed artificial intelligence, social processes, computer-supported cooperative work, organizational design, multimedia/hypertext systems. The keynote speaker will be Terry Winograd. Information for authors Papers will be judged for technical merit by appropriate subgroups of the program committee. Submissions are due September 21, 1987. Submissions may be made either on paper (5 copies) or on some standard electronic medium to: Conference on Office Information Systems Dr. Robert B. Allen 2A-367 Bell Communications Research Morristown, NJ 07960 Report on CHI+GI '87 Sara Bly SIGGRAPH Liaison to SIGCHI SIGCHI, the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer and Human Interaction, and the Canadian Information Processing Society's Canadian Man-Computer Communications Society combined and co-sponsored their annual conferences on Human Factors in Computing Systems and Graphics Interface in Toronto, Canada, April 1987. The conference was held in cooperation with the Human Factors Society and ACM/SIGGRAPH. Over 1500 attendees from 18 countries came to Toronto for five days of tutorials, paper presentations, panels, keynote speakers, videos, hardware/software demonstrations, poster sessions, and an electronic theater, as well as many opportunities to meet and talk with colleagues. Plenary sessions set the tone for much of the conference. Edward Tufte of Yale University discussed the importance of good graphics for information presentation. Thomas Landauer of Bell Communications Research presented an address on user interface analysis. Rob Kling of UC Davis talked about the social dimensions of computerization. The CHI+GI '87 proceedings, Human Factors in Computer Systems and Graphics Interface, contains the technical program papers, panel descriptions, plenary talks (by Landauer and by Kling), and doctoral consortium overviews. Forty-six papers were in sessions on displays and output, input, user interface metaphors, user interface management systems, user interfaces for the physically disabled, adaptive interfaces, graphics algorithms, animation, graphics systems, training and advice, learning to use systems, user system interaction, design, methodological issues, predictive cognitive modeling, and systems in organizations. Ten panels included topics covering interaction (voice, gesture and handwriting, and UIMS), design, cooperative work, and a summary of the 1986 workshop on interactive 3D graphics. The CHI+GI '87 electronic theater, produced by Catherine Richards, followed the documentary style she introduced at Graphics Interface '84. It successfully combined commercial animation with research graphics and user interface clips in a fast-paced and exciting presentation. The electronic theatre was a smashing success and will be distributed as issue 26 of the SIGGRAPH Video Review. The conference proceedings and video review issue are available from ACM Order Department, Box 64145 Baltimore, MD 21264 (301) 528-4261 (800) 342-6626 (for credit card orders only) Proceedings: ACM order no. 608870, price: ACM members, $20; non-members, $27. SIGGRAPH video review issue #26, price: $50 (3/4 inch or VHS). The next SIGCHI conference, CHI '88, will be held in Washington, DC, May 1519, 1988. For advance program information, contact the ACM Conference Coordinator, 11 W. 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036. Phone (212) 869-7440. Announcement of 3-D Imaging in Medicine A two-and-one-half day course on the rapidly expanding applications of three-dimensional imaging in medicine is being sponsored by the Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, December 1012, 1987. The course is oriented towards the educational needs of radiologists, surgeons, orthopedics, radiation therapists and others interested in applying three-dimensional imaging. The course is oriented to medical users and the clinical use of 3D imaging methods; knowledge of computers is not assumed. For information contact Ms. Janice Ford, CME Coordinator, Dept. of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Pennsylvania, PA 19014, (215) 662-6904 or (215) 662-6982. The Standards Pipeline Jon A. Meads SIGGRAPH X3H3 Representative NEWS Computer Graphics Metafile NCGA will be highlighting the use of the Computer Graphics Metafile as a means for transferring graphical images among different systems as part of the theme for its 1988 conference. CGM suppliers and others who are interested in participating should contact Bob Willis, NCGA, 2722 Merilee Drive, Suite 200, Fairfax, VA 22031. GKS SC21/WG2 is considering the revision of GKS. The US position at the upcoming SC21/WG2 meeting will be to participate in the discussions on revision but not to vote in favor of or against a new work item (NWI) for revising GKS. If you find parts of GKS confusing, ambiguous or otherwise below standard, don't feel bad you are not alone. A proposed GKS Information Bulletin is being planned to respond to questions that have been raised regarding certain specifications contained in the American National Standard GKS, ANSI X3.124-1985. The Bulletin, while reflecting the technical opinion of X3H3 regarding the interpretation of GKS, is intended solely as supplementary information to other users of the standard. The first issue of the Bulletin is expected to be published late this year. A four-month public review of the ANS C language bindings of GKS is planned and should extend from June through September. GKS-3D is progressing towards being an ISO standard and has reached the draft international standard (DIS) stage which implies that it is technically stable. It is hoped that an ANSI public review can be scheduled for later this year. PHIGS RPI has made a tutorial video tape, Introduction to PHIGS, which covers the major PHIGS concepts and illustrates them with demos on a display. Copies of this tape may be requested from Center for Interactive Computer Graphics, RPI, Troy, NY 12180-3590. Cost is $50 for 3/4-inch video tape (broadcast quality), $60 for VHS. Call Paula Passaretti, (518)266-6752, for additional information. On the international front, it is expected that most outstanding ISO issues regarding PHIGS will be resolved at the next meeting of SC21/WG2 and that the DIS text for PHIGS will be available in the fall. Display Management At the Tulsa meeting of X3, X3H3.6 requested that the name of this group be changed from ``Display Management'' to ``Windows Management.'' Originally, there had been concern that the use of the term ``window'' would conflict with current terminology as used in GKS, PHIGS, etc. X3H3.6 also resolved to investigate the role of the X window system (version 11) as a basis for a future window standard. The X window system, designed for use with LAN's having high speed and reliable communications, is currently being supported by a number of major computer companies. However, much work needs to be done before it can be considered seriously as a standard. A reference model showing the major components of X and their relationship to each other and to external software components needs to be developed. Also, the status of X's drawing package which is not compatible with either GKS or CGI needs to be resolved. Finally, the limitations of X need to be well understood. Even if the X window system is proposed for standardization, it is unlikely that it will be a window system universally appropriate to all environments or needs. Validation ISO is developing validation suites for GKS and for the CGM. The current tests are simply syntax checks as there are no minimum requirements for the CGM. However it is hoped that eventually a set of application profiles can be generated for testing the appropriateness of CGM implementations for a variety of application environments. Version 1.9 of the GKS validation test suite is currently undergoing beta-test. NBS has been added as a new test center for GKS and will begin a one-year trial test service later this year. A major unresolved issue is deciding what level of errors will be tolerated for certification. Text & Document Standards X3V1 (Text: Office & Publishing Systems) is in the process of establishing a new task group on font and character information. X3V1 has also taken exception to the proposal by the National Printing Equipment and Supply Association (NPES) to develop standards for the exchange of digital information between electronic prepress systems and their components. The prososal referenced the development of standards for exchanging image data including color picture data, line art data and geometric placement data. X3V1 believes that such an effort would be in conflict and a duplication of the approved program of work of X3V1 and ISO/TC97/SC18. The matter has been referred to the Information Systems Standards Board (ISSB) for resolution. Standards Organization Currently, computer graphics standardization is assigned to SC21, the ISO TC97 subcommittee on Open Systems Support Services. The Japanese have already proposed that a new TC97 subcommittee be formed to manage this effort (with an offer to base the secretariat in Japan). Now the TC97 advisory group has also recommended a new SC for computer graphics because the computer graphics standards effort has grown to a size to warrant SC status and because the subject of graphics standards has broadened to be larger than the scope of SC21. They have noted that Germany (DIN) has also offered to undertake the secretariat responsibility. [The current secretariat for SC21 and therefore graphics is ANSI.] An ISO letter ballot on this issue is currently being voted on. X3's International Advisory Committee (IAC) is in favor of a separate SC for graphics. However, X3H3 has recommended against the separate SC. If a new SC is formed, X3H3 believes that it will be more difficult for small countries to participate in graphics standards. With fewer participating members, X3H3 believes it will be more difficult to get NWI's on graphics standards established since at least five countries must approve a NWI. The Standards Process One of the prime requirements of the standards process in the US is consensus. Currently, if a technical committee such as X3H3 puts forth a standard for public review that has not obtained unanimous approval of its voting members, then an X3 vote is required prior to issuing the standard for public review. This additional step adds two to three months to the standards process. However X3H3, which has approximately 70 member organizations, is much larger than most technical committees which makes obtaining unanimous approval of all X3H3 members more difficult. Therefore, X3H3 has requested that X3 eliminate the requirement for unanimity, substituting a requirement for a high percentage of positive votes instead. COMMENTS One of the disappointments of GKS was that, in spite of the claims that it would be everything to everyone that a graphics package could be, its usage seems to have been pretty much relegated to the generation of static pictures. Dynamic interactive applications had to await the arrival of PHIGS. As a result, the GKS input model was never completely put to the test. Unfortunately, the GKS input model was incorporated into PHIGS. However, a number of new interactive concepts have been developed since the GKS input model was formulated. These include familiar items such as pop-up menus and dynamic cursor shapes. Simply put, the GKS/PHIGS input model is incapable of supporting current and advanced input techniques. Ward and Blesser pointed out the problems with using GKS to handle handprinted input [WARD85]. One of the benefits of handprinted input is the ability to specify both position and size along with the input of a given symbol. Providing this capability in GKS would require that handprinted recognition be specifically implemented as three separate logical devices with input reported to the application as three separate events. Van Dam et al. describe several specific problems with the current standards input model [VAN DAM87] in a comment to the recent public review for PHIGS: 1) The inability to change the parameters of logical input devices except during initialization. 2) The conflict that occurs when logical devices share a common physical device (for example, Pick and Locator implemented on a single mouse). 3) The inability to combine multiple physical events, such as double-clicking, into a single event due to the lack of time-stamps. 4) The lack of usefulness of Request Mode in modern user interfaces. 5) The inability of applications to define a logical device's characteristics. 6) The lack of window management events which makes it difficult to execute PHIGS applications in a windows environment. They see the basic problem with the current GKS/PHIGS input model to be the fact that the essential interactive characteristics of the logical input devices are ``hardwired'' into PHIGS by the implementor and cannot be modified by the application. They make the following recommendations: 1) Allow the mix of PHIGS input devices with other interaction ``widgets'' managed by the application. 2) Allow PHIGS input device parameters to be treated as application settable ``attributes.'' 3) Define a Pointer input class that bundles the Pick, Locator, and Choice devices and whose measure is the union of the measures of the Pick, Locator, and Choice. 4) Eliminate support for Request Mode. They also mention that they believe window events should be handled outside of PHIGS. Puk has also noticed the problems with the PHIGS input model [PUK86], particularly the limitations of the six atomic classes of logical input devices and the inability to attach input measures to output data items except at the level of the application. The former prevents the use of ``application-intelligent'' devices and the latter can be an impediment to dynamic displays particularly where the application is separated from the PHIGS device by a communication link. Puk sees the solution to be in allowing applications to define additional logical input devices by specifying the elemental processes that make up a logical device the measure, echo, trigger, and acknowledgement processes. He also recommends that support be provided for defining composite input devices and for supporting local input processing so that applications may define tasks which use the facilities and data of a workstation and which would operate in the environment of the workstation. Unfortunately, Puk states, many current standard programming languages and available operating systems do not provide the facilities by which these capabilities can be efficiently implemented. It is an intrinsic characteristic of standards that they are years late and functionally short. The standards process itself ensures this. The above concerns and suggestions should definitely be considered for upgrades to the current standards. However, it is even more important that designers of state-of-the-art systems be aware of the shortcomings of the current standards and not constrain their designs to yesterday's technology. This is particularly the case with graphics as we move increasingly faster towards dedicated workstations capable of supporting dynamic and intimate interaction between a user and an application. We need to recognize that the old models don't work in today's environments and we need to start developing new models that will. I believe the above changes to the standard input model are headed in the proper direction with Puk's suggestions likely to have the most potential. However, I believe that we must extend these concepts further. We must also be willing to consider non-standard programming languages and new operating systems which cater specifically to interaction and to integrated, individual use of workstations. While we should employ current graphics standards where they are appropriate, we should be willing to ignore them where they are an impediment to progress and new development. References [WARD85] Ward, Jean Renard and Blesser, Barry. Interactive Recognition of Handprinted Characters for Computer Input, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 5, 9 (September, 1985). [VAN DAM87] van Dam, Andries, Sklar, David, Michener, James, and Foley, James. PHIGS Public Review Input Model. X3H3/87-69. January 18, 1987. [PUK86] Puk, Richard. Enhancements to PHIGS Input Model. X3H3.1/86-48. November 10, 1986. JAnnouncements21-3.tioga Rick Beach, March 21, 1987 3:06:33 pm PST Ê–"computergraphics" style˜default•MarkcenterHeader™K–centerFooter™)K– invisible™—titlešœ˜IbodyšœÈÏiœé˜ÂM˜ˆM˜±M˜ Mšœ<˜=—˜Ihead˜5Mšœ<Ïmœ¶˜óM˜œMšœéÏbœ,˜˜Mšœô˜ôM˜„Mšœ€Ÿœ6˜¹M˜¼Mšœ ˜!—šœœ˜-šœ¼Ÿœ›˜æIindent˜u—MšœBŸœeŸ œ{Ÿ œ˜Î˜˜ÏIbulletšŸœ˜PšŸœ˜PšŸœ˜PšŸœ˜PšŸœ˜PšŸœ˜PšŸœ˜PšŸœ˜PšŸœ˜PšŸœ˜PšŸœ˜PšŸœ˜—šœ%Ÿœ˜NO˜±—Mšœ`˜`—˜Ilistšœ˜Qšœ ˜Qšœ ˜Qšœ˜Qšœ˜Qšœ˜"Qšœ ˜Qšœ ˜Qšœ˜Qšœ˜'——šœ8˜8Iauthors˜uM˜ƒ˜šœrŸœ_˜ãO˜u———šœ˜R˜#M˜‘M˜êMšœ8œÕ˜©Mšœðœ˜†˜DO˜pIblock˜—MšœEŸœ‰˜Ý—˜'MšœÌŸœö˜Ö—˜R˜)—˜˜M˜Ç—˜M˜ãMšœ{œ©œ¾œ,˜¶M˜zM˜ë—˜Mšœ$œÎ˜‡M˜Ë—˜M˜–M˜Û—˜ M˜ÐM˜ž—˜M˜~M˜ä—˜M˜¼ —˜M˜Õ——˜M˜³M˜¢M˜šœœŠ˜˜Inumbereditem˜`Tšœ^Ïoœ œ ˜ŽT˜‚Tšœ œ˜DT˜NT˜x—M˜÷˜(T˜fT˜\Tš œ1 œ œ œ? œ œ œ˜£Tšœ œ˜&S˜U—M˜ØM˜ôM˜ÀM˜þM˜Ã—˜ I referencešœv(Ÿœ˜µUšœP!œ˜Ušœ!œ"˜Z——…—Wt[Ì