Shape

II
SEEING HOW IT WORKS
An interesting question for a theory of semantic information is whether there is any equivalent
for the engineer’s concept of noise. For example, if a statement can have more than one interpretation
and if one meaning is understood by the hearer and another is intended by the speaker,
then there is a kind of semantic noise in the communication even though the physical signals
might have been transmitted perfectly.
—George A. Miller
Starting Over
In part I, I gave a visual account of visual calculating. Most of what I said could be
checked with your eyes. Still, calculating is traditionally mathematics, and there are
abundant reasons to make visual calculating look more that way. In particular, I can
add the details to the scheme I outlined in the introduction that relates visual and
verbal expression. And the mathematics repays the effort. It shows exactly how visual
calculating includes symbol manipulation, and how symbolic processes by themselves
are enough to calculate visually. What’s more, the mathematics provides a range of
technical devices that can be incorporated in rules, and that are very useful in design.
In lots of ways, this is the heart of this book. Applying rules to design is what I wanted
to do from the beginning, and now I’m going to develop some of the formal machinery
that makes this practicable—always with seeing first and foremost. Everything I do
meets the same test—is it confirmed by my eyes? I don’t want to ignore anything
that’s visual. If seeing finally says no, then the mathematics is wrong. For example, taking
lines in shapes as independent entities—treating them as members of sets—doesn’t
pass visual muster. You should use this test, too. Seeing always comes first. If something
looks different than the mathematics implies, then there’s something amiss.
Trust your eyes. Only be sure that it’s a matter of seeing, and not merely a consequence
of remembering what’s there before you look. It’s easy to make the mistake that what
something means now—what parts it has—determines what it looks like later. This is a
semantic fallacy. Memory isn’t necessary when you can always start over.
I once talked to a famous architect / computer scientist who insisted that the
shape