My thoughts on the whole thing were, there are two ways I could use this, like in the nuclear power plant I want to see at first glance that something is not ok, just at a glance and the second way is that I want to look at something in detail what the problem is and I think the two don't lead to the same best representation. 

 

For the quick monitoring best, were scale and rotate in the first place rotate and not so good the scale. It doesn't bother me at all that I don't necessarily see at the activity which rule is violated. I would also rotate only one axis fixed to e.g. 45 degree, I think that scale or rotate are the perfect combination with symbol or color. Preferred visualization is rotation with symbol or color. To show the overview information. 

 

 

Yes exactly, for monitoring i.e. for the overview I would use the combination of rotate and symbol or color. 

 

For the detail view I prefer the text, I think here about the enforceability of the system, I have to anotode symbol, color, rotation and the combination of these 3 is well plannable and feasible but in some way static. 

With the detail view I need maximum flexibility and also combinability with the 3 other representations, the text gives me maximum flexibility. You can think up any text you want and display it without circumstances. The text gives you the possibility to express any complicated information at this point.  

 

What I didn't like the most was edge, edge pattern and arrow head, they were very unpleasant to me, I just imagine these are comparatively our simple processes and already these look very cluttered and it only gets worse with every increase. This whole line thing makes me uncomfortable. What I also didn't like was shape, that was too fine granular the change. Position activities and constraints I find in principle also not good but not quite as bad as the edges. Textures could be good but they have to be handled very carefully. It is necessary to choose suitable textures for the use case adapted to the domain. Textures are dangerous at the same time I like the limited expressibility of color and symbol, of course you can do that wrong but with textures you can do something wrong much easier. With textures, for example, you have the problem that the text can easily become hard to read. You can counteract this problem with color more easily by automatic conversion for good contrast, but with texture it is not so easy. 

I just don't like the brightniss visualization. 

 

Only instances. 

I think it's a question of viewpoint if I'm doing pure management I want to see the processes and only the processes with constraints. If I'm also managing the whole thing then I just want to look at the instances, how far along they are, where did/do which problems occur. 

I would not mix these two views. 

 

I see VR for the planning of the processes and for the runtime the AR on the shopfloor.  

Why the separation in one place VR in the other AR? 

Because on the shopfloor the AR allows me contextualization, when I look in one direction I see the processes as they run, I want to see the instance view, when I look at a machine I see the corresponding instances, that allows me a certain scalability, so the context where I am allows me complexity management.  

In the planning view, I see more VR, where I might want to combine things from my table that might not have anything to do with each other locally. It is of no use to me at this point if I use AR like VR and the only reason for AR is that in the background is my room. I want to use VR explicitly so that I have more space to use things that may not belong together locally. The desktop is from my point of view a replacement that I can use as a replacement/backup for VR but AR can not be replaced not even with monitors at the shopfloor. 

 

 

No, I'm extremely excited, I think it's very cool, I sincerly hope we can test it in real, I think the runtime capabilities as you present them here offer a better demonstration capability compared to the pure design time view.