Summary:
Paulson and Hammond begin their paper by explaining the different low-level sketch shapes used in their system. These shapes are basic enough to be useful but broad enough to not allow too much clutter and overlap. They explain a bit of the work that led to their system, and then jump into details. The writers start by explaining their new features of NDDE (normalized distance between direction extremes) and DCR (direction change ratio) and how they're used to find each shape. They help immensely in the finding of spirals and arcs vs. curves. The next section explains their innovative "ranking" system, which allows for multiple fits to be found for each sketch. Then each fit is given a number based on the rankings and the number of each primitive in the fit. For example, if a fit has 5 lines and a fit of the same sketch has 1 line and 1 arc (3 points), then the 1 line and 1 arc will be a better fit than the 5 lines.
Discussion:
I love the idea of the ranking system. I think some might find it hard to accept, however, unless they are given the option of changing it for their own needs. Some may think that an arc should be worth more than 3 points, and a circle more than 5, etc. If everyone is given the option of changing these "thresholds" on ranking, however, I think this would be a great asset to low level sketch recognition and finding the best fit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It took me awhile to get a handle of the ranking system that was used in this paper. IMO, the level of detail introduced in the paper on it seemed like a tangent from what I read in the previous sections. The use of the hierarchy itself was an appropriate alternative to the lack of a consistent metric though. I think a condensed version of the ranking system in the paper and the details in some sort of addendum would be more fitting. I especially agree with your comment about having some sort of ability for the user to tweak the ranking system. I envision such a thing to be an option for future work, if there was enough merit to justify the addition. As of now, I don't see why not.
Post a Comment