Visualizing data is an art
perthirtysix.com
perthirtysix.com
I was too baffled to respond.
On the contrary, I think data visualization (along with architecture, mathematics, and mechanical watches) is one of the most interesting art forms that requires strict constraints.
For sure, the best artists are the ones who take their whole perception of stuff, with the feelings and everything else, and put it directly in someone else's brain. I would maybe say that some data visualization is supposed to do that, particularly data journalism, but definitely not all data visualization.
I think not all data visualization is art in the same sense that not all writing is literature, and in fact almost all isn't, because it's more like "I am in a shared info network with my boss/colleagues/clients/readers, and we need to communicate as rapidly and directly as possible, so we've agreed on a shared visual language that is higher bandwidth." Emails are slightly less exciting to read than a novel but like a million times faster to write per word.
Which is kind of sad. It would be fun to hone that skill and there is no room for that at my job.
(Side note, it seems like everyone always says that the pie chart problem is about lengths vs angles... but isn't it just that one chart has a shared baseline and the other doesn't? Taking the middle out [donut chart] to emphasize arc length doesn't actually solve the problem. Conversely, a stacked bar is more like a pie chart than a bar chart, except with a weird aspect ratio if you only have one stacked bar).
I think that data journalism is a great example of that "put it in someone's brain" idea.
I also think there are all kinds of places we're seeing more novel approaches in too: data art, physical data viz (e.g. museum exhibits), visualizing huge datasets, etc. The Climate Stripes project, maybe the most famous data viz of the last couple decades, was made by a climate scientist.
But I definitely agree that this "more experimental than rigid" side of data viz doesn't capture the majority of the field, nor should it!
It can look pretty, but making it art for the sake of art probably won't resonate with your audience.
That's been my experience after I've trained and consulted with some of the biggest companies in the world.
So I'm not sure if you read my piece or just wanted to drop a promotion, but I think you're misrepresenting my view here. I'm not advocating for "art for the sake of art" and I certainly don't think you should not know your audience.
My main point is that I don't think all of data viz is as simple as you're implying here, i.e. that a pretty chart probably won't "resonate" or that a chart from the Tufte school of thought automatically will.
My experience is that most folks creating visualizations don't need or want the capability to have freedom. They want guidelines to help them communicate well.
I get that people use the word art as "difficult", "obscure" or "intangible" but...
Art is about self-expression, evoking emotions, and open interpretation. Design is about problem-solving, functionality, and clear communication.
Clearly DataViz is Design.
Take a project like this: https://www.dear-data.com/theproject... this is clearly data visualization and, to me, quite evocative. These visualizations aren't designed for clarity and they don't need to be, that wasn't the goal.
Is Design an Art?
Art is about these things, but is also about many other things. And art can be clear in its intentions, leaving little to interpret.
What is the purpose of data visualization? Often to evoke emotions and to help someone not familiar with the data understand how to interpret it.
The people who accomplish this most effectively understand that the point isn't just to force data points into a visual form. If it were so simple, more people would be good at it (they aren't).
> Clearly DataViz is Design
I don't understand this sentence. I'm not trying to be difficult, but if DataViz is Design, what is Design?
Beyond the potential emotional power of a well-chosen and executed visualization, there's also a decent bit of research about the ability to influence mood via color choice. Color choice when visualizing data can make a huge difference in its effectiveness due to this emotional effect.
Charts should be about hard data, not rhetoric.
And like I wrote about, you can have very precise charts that can be extraordinarily manipulative.
The whole "charts should be about hard data" thing always sounds nice, until you realize that every visualization is an abstraction and brings in some human bias. You are always picking the scales, whether or not to use color, how to aggregate the data, etc. There is no such thing as a neutral chart.
Also... there are data visualizations outside of science. Of course science should be more precise than something like data art.
art as a the top degree in any discipline; like in "state of the art"
but there's also art as that little part of science that escapes rationality, the self-expression drive of a human and so on
> "It can be a science, an art, and a craft all at once."
suggests the article leans for the art as the top level of some discipline definition of art
Pie Charts are good for showing relative proportions of a whole for a relatively small number of items. Donut charts are better because humans tend to misread area slightly in pie charts.
But when done poorly, they can be a mess. Like any other chart.
If the author pops by, I’ve just gotta say: you’re killin it with the cute illustrations, especially the dials one. Very inspiring stuff!
Thanks for sharing, OP.
EDIT: if I had to pick out any one idea for a casual reader to learn about, I’d definitely highlight “Cognitive Load”. It’s used as part of a broader discussion here, but when looked at in a certain light it can capture a whole lot of diverse factors in one consistent framework!
And thanks for the nice words about the animations! Glad to hear that work doesn't go unappreciated haha
Looking forward to seeing your posts in the future. Wish you could follow people on HN!
I try to apply principles of progressive enhancement when I want to communicate. I start with plain HTML, basic text block structure and images.
Interactive data viz can be a sublime way to tell a story with data. But if I can't explain the data with the basics, I try to rethink my approach.
I absolutely believe that data visualization, as an art, A craft, can transform the way we share essential ideas.
But I try to make sure a static hero image is up there when necessary.
Flashy trashy is just crap. Some might call it art but then again everything is art these days.
When you see a broken toilet sitting in an art gallery selling for 5 million dollars and someone thinks "I could do that, this is stupid", they have completely missed the point. The art is not the broken toilet, the art is selling it for 5 million dollars - which is something the complaining person definitly cannot do. That's the art.
It wouldn't make sense to say "I've grown out of being impressed by complex prose" - you're welcome to enjoy Faulker or not, but he simply didn't have the same goals as the authors of the Stripe documentation, and judging both pieces of writing by the same standard is basically pointless (except, perhaps, as an art project of its own).
I'd even apply this to coding itself. Day to day, I think everybody around me should be writing Blub, grug-brain code, but I'm happy there are people trying creative, weird languages and mind-bending ideas elsewhere and I'm curious what they find out.
For those who aren't familiar https://observablehq.com/@mbostock
> - Reduce unnecessary cognitive load and emphasize a feeling, as in the Climate Stripes example.
> - Encode a much higher volume of data, as in the Climate Globe example.
> -Add delight and use a visual metaphor to show trends, as in the Coffee Shop example
This the most absurd claim I have ever seen regarding data visualization. Give up precision for delight? Give up precision for a feeling? This article should have been tile "How to lie with graphs". The article is advocating for how to use graphs in the service of rhetoric, not science. This is exactly why visualizing data should NOT be treated as art. The first and third bullet point are obsolutely not reasons to give up
In this case, what is meant by "give up some precision" is to try removing some sharp edges that get in the way of telling the story. It's a long way from lying (when done with due consideration).
They're examples. Choose what works for your data and you your story to get the best result.
The Wall Street Journal Guide to Information Graphics should be a required for reading for anyone working with numbers.
tldr: only use color when necessary, avoid bold typefaces, keep scales consistent across charts unless there is a specific need to do otherwise.
1. I generally agree with you on that goal, but there are a TON of ways to convey information in a digestible way without being misleading. Even if you follow good practices.
2. "Convey" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. What are you conveying? One number? Many numbers? A specific story? As much data as possible to let the viewer find a trend themselves? Are the numbers important or the general direction of the data? Picking an answer and making the visual serve that goal is an art IMO.
One area that might be "pregnant" for some new approaches is the visualization of large datasets, eg large graphs. Extracting useful (and objective) information instead of ovewhelming with the sheer number of data points. That is indeed the art of visualisation.
I don’t think there has really been one in decades. We’ve gotten better tools for making viz interactive but that’s about it.
Maybe the subdivisions with exact numbers also play a significant role in the effectiveness of the bar chart in the article. It lets you compare against a clear reference, so you're often comparing to the scale itself rather than directly between bars.
Are you sure 10% increment guides in bar chart have nothing to do with this?