@misc{r_computing_nodate,
	title = {Computing and {Imaging}},
	abstract = {When was the last time you saw an isosurface with error bars or streamlines with standard deviations or volume visualizations with representations of confidence intervals? With few exceptions, visualization research has ignored the visual representation of errors and uncertainty for 3D visualizations. However, if you look at peer-reviewed science and engineering journals, you will see that the majority of 2D graphs represent error and/or uncertainty within the experimental or simulated data. Why the difference? Clearly, if it’s important to represent error and uncertainty in 2D graphs, then it’s equally important to represent error and uncertainty in 2D and 3D visualization. The possible detriment caused by the failure to represent errors and uncertainties in 3D visualizations},
	author = {R, Chris and {Johnson} and R, Allen},
}

{"_id":"NC6RobJb82gfF4we8","bibbaseid":"r-johnson-r-computingandimaging","author_short":["R, C.","Johnson","R, A."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"misc","type":"misc","title":"Computing and Imaging","abstract":"When was the last time you saw an isosurface with error bars or streamlines with standard deviations or volume visualizations with representations of confidence intervals? With few exceptions, visualization research has ignored the visual representation of errors and uncertainty for 3D visualizations. However, if you look at peer-reviewed science and engineering journals, you will see that the majority of 2D graphs represent error and/or uncertainty within the experimental or simulated data. Why the difference? Clearly, if it’s important to represent error and uncertainty in 2D graphs, then it’s equally important to represent error and uncertainty in 2D and 3D visualization. The possible detriment caused by the failure to represent errors and uncertainties in 3D visualizations","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["R"],"firstnames":["Chris"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":[],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Johnson"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["R"],"firstnames":["Allen"],"suffixes":[]}],"bibtex":"@misc{r_computing_nodate,\n\ttitle = {Computing and {Imaging}},\n\tabstract = {When was the last time you saw an isosurface with error bars or streamlines with standard deviations or volume visualizations with representations of confidence intervals? With few exceptions, visualization research has ignored the visual representation of errors and uncertainty for 3D visualizations. However, if you look at peer-reviewed science and engineering journals, you will see that the majority of 2D graphs represent error and/or uncertainty within the experimental or simulated data. Why the difference? Clearly, if it’s important to represent error and uncertainty in 2D graphs, then it’s equally important to represent error and uncertainty in 2D and 3D visualization. The possible detriment caused by the failure to represent errors and uncertainties in 3D visualizations},\n\tauthor = {R, Chris and {Johnson} and R, Allen},\n}\n\n","author_short":["R, C.","Johnson","R, A."],"key":"r_computing_nodate","id":"r_computing_nodate","bibbaseid":"r-johnson-r-computingandimaging","role":"author","urls":{},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"misc","biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/users/6447874/collections/WGF5R63S/items?key=YvFDI7aVva0YJAkhHsJgGe1E&format=bibtex&limit=100","dataSources":["Lf658bM2ZyP4geado","eTsH756eicg6vxuG3","oQmvuHyTLp6NoX4Ft","xLHz7TwAQSD7RR3y6","TZeKmKj6mKcyHY3tK"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["computing","imaging","r","johnson","r"],"title":"Computing and Imaging","year":null}