Design de informação em interfaces digitais: origens, definições e fundamentos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nos dias atuais, o design envolve a produção não só de objetos materiais, mas também de interfaces gráfico-digitais, com as quais o usuário interage no ciberespaço. Existem pontos de contato entre o design de informação e o design de interfaces, uma vez que ambas as disciplinas lidam com informações e signos. São identificados dois marcos para a origem do design de informação, ambos oriundos da década de 1930: o mapa das linhas de metrô de Londres, de autoria de Harry C. Beck, e o trabalho desenvolvido por Otto Neurath, que introduziu o método Isotype. Observa-se que diferentes definições para a disciplina ou campo de estudo destacam a importância do usuário no processo do design de informação. São apresentados seus fundamentos, a partir dos estudos de Bertin, Mijksenaar, Tufte e Redig. Percebe-se a necessidade de se atentar às possíveis estratégias para se reforçar, diferenciar e suportar conteúdos a serem apresentados aos usuários, seja em suporte físico ou digital.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".