Which once was GIFIC (Graphical Interface For Information Cognition) is now FYI Visual…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5th0i6UcQg

data visualization presentations which work are effective because they are instantly recognized, and that is because they have been used abundantly by mainstream media. a map, a pie-chart, a time series: those are governed by centenial laws and don’t need to come with a handbook.

now more novel forms of visualization need more explanation. this also means they will require a stronger commitment from a potential viewer to get the message.

for that reason, why would mainstream media use advanced visualization techniques rather than spend their money on beautifying (read: chartjunking) existing ones?

unfortunately there are quite a few cases where a standard chart won’t work and where a more sophisticated approach would be not only more impressive visually but also clearer, easier to use and more effective. but who outside of the NYTimes understands that?

Cheers,
Todd

Based on our own work, I’m seeing infovis creep into the wider world in two ways: standalone set pieces like our work for Digg Labs or the NYTimes’ occasional interactive piece, and augmentations to existing interfaces in the form of reactive charts, indicators, and sparklines kneaded into the flow of more traditional information.

Nicely put. I especially agree with your first two reasons for data visualization’s slow progress. Much of my time is spent trying to alleviate people’s misunderstandings about data visualization and the harm done by many visualizations that simply don’t work. Data visualization has recently been growing in popularity, but much of what people see is the silly stuff–more more graphical glitz than true and meaningful data display.

Take care,

Steve

This text remind me a script of P. Dirac I read few weeks ago (here http://www.atomicprecision.com/Other/Paul%20Dirac%20Talk%20-%20Projective%20Geometry%20(2).pdf). In the script Dirac compared gemoetric and algebraic thinking from phillosophic and practicle perspectives. It has suprised me that he actually perfered geometrical thinking, but just for technical reason most of his puplications seemed more algebraical.

I think most researchers and scientists are still favoring analytical or algebraic presentations; and this might be another reason for the lack of interest for visual data presentation.

however, I think the key is why ‘Visualisation Is Not More Prevalent in the Minds of People’.

and graphic design *should* be a part of visualisation – of a good visualisation, at least! look at Jonathan Harris, for starters, who does amazing work. and his are examples where visualisation is art!

your point about crappy visualisations is quite true, and the 4th reason is a very good observation. like Maeda says, being complex is easy. it’s being simple that’s difficult.

Second, Google is not alone in their efforts to promote visualization. All the top web companies (MS, Y!, IBM, Sun) are actively betting on “visualization”. You just have to look for it.

Keep up the good work, nice blog! Discovered it recently, great stuff.