When reading these two chapters, for a moment I feel like that the “Diagram”, especially the big project of infographic is just like a “Dream Land”, where time-series chart is roller coaster, bar chart is a bunch of transformers – huge as Optimus Prime or tiny like Brainstorm. Figuring out the diagram is an exploration full of fun; but we audiences may easily get lost if the “guide map” is poorly organized.
Whether it is Dream Land or graphic, people want to benefit themselves from it, relaxation or erudition. For archiving this function, tourist map always include the top 5 fancy programs; similarly, graphics need to present variables relate to the theme. Besides, comparison, organization (e.g. level, order) and correlation among variables inside form of graphic is also significant for leading audience to the core of theme progressively.
Above words may give an impression that “form follow function”, which is falsifiable. In fact, they are bidirectional. It’s easy to understand the evidence of nature, while I was struggling with this idea in graphic form for hours. Unlike the evolution of giraffe or the development of Internet which have happened by chance, inventing or choosing a certain graphic form is in purpose, so why it is not true that “form follow function”? Then I realized the what last paragraph said, a certain chart may serve for a particular purpose, but it is dangerous if we make it as an infallible law. Because reality is changeable, one size could not always fit all. In a nutshell, form and function are mutual influenced, “the better-defined goal, the narrower the variety of form.”
Chapter 3 introduces a very interesting tool – The Visualization Wheel (I guess it’s a Rader chart) which packages the evaluation index in a circle is quite full-scaled. I really like this, for it is concise and handy. We don’t need to court the regular polygon in the wheel, but make it depend on the nature of data, and the average readers. Whereas I’ve heard a lot of instances that “gatekeepers” play fool of their readers. Like the outdated theory “magic bullet”, some people take themselves as magicians while their readers are a crowd of muggles. I prefer to say that readers are just untrained magicians. We should respect them, respect their experiences and knowledge, which could help us get a correct User Profile. It recalls one thing in my mind. Just two days ago, my roommate was drawing an idea for a hot-dog (a fast-food brand) advertisement. When she turned to me for help, I asked what the core concept of this brand is, she said it’s family and healthy. I feel like…what? A healthy hot dog? Except that it’s made whole of vegetable… It is a really bad example of underestimating of people’s intelligence.
Another debate is Decoration vs. Function. When read the opinions of professor Tufte, I can’t help but wonder if professor Tufte is “too serious about data”? His minimalist is somewhat OCD (no offense, just share what I’m thinking about) and we may sometimes have too much of good things. Although I’m not familiar with Holmes, another pioneer in the debate, whose works did leave an impression on me – the hot girl with diamond. But something interesting is that I can’t remember what the graphic want to express exactly, what emerges in my mind once is the mesh stockings. So, I go back to the page, then I find the reason why – the stockings occupied about half of the graphic. Lol. I’ll admit that Holmes is creative, while who is not quite cautious with statistics in his early styles. Sometimes it is difficult to get the balance right between function and decoration, and that is what we should try to archive.
Comments
Post a Comment