Comments on: 5 Reasons Visualization Is Not More Prevalent

By: Why Isn’t Data Visualization More Popular? « My PhD Blog

Why Isn’t Data Visualization More Popular? « My PhD Blog — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:50:26 +0000

[...] Todd provides 5 reasons why data visualization isn’t more prevalent: [...]

By: Benjamin Wiederkehr

Benjamin Wiederkehr — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:31:03 +0000

Solid analysis Todd. In my experience, data visualization gets it’s exposure more and more these days. A factor of tremendous importance is the relation between data, visualization technic and audience. Too often over-complex visualization confuses the unexperienced user although the visualization itself is well suited for the represented data. It’s my belief that in the relationship between viewer and visualization lies great potential to help data visualization gain expsure and get understood.

By: Brett St Louis

Brett St Louis — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:21:35 +0000

From my experience, info graphics are not taught often in journalism schools.

By: sasha

sasha — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:06:55 +0000

What do you think of this: http://www.cloudtuner.com

By: Kim Lesser

Kim Lesser — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:30:35 +0000

Have you seen FYI Visual? The original program was created in 1989 and was way ahead of its time.

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

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

By: jerome cukier

jerome cukier — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:58:22 +0000

I agree to your arguments and with Steve’s refinement. (I’m reading your books now Steve and find them very well-written.)
but I think of a different reason for which data vizualisation isn’t more popular. It has to do with attention.

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?

By: admin

admin — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:41:15 +0000

Great comments…thanks for contributing!!

Cheers,
Todd

By: Michal Migurski

Michal Migurski — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:15:42 +0000

Great article. I think perhaps one answer to your question lies in your CTO’s comments – he’s looking for successful standalone efforts, while we think that visual representations of information rarely stand alone. There are always concerns of the sort you call our in your comments on Ben Fry: you have to be intimately familiar with the data, and willing to look beyond stock solutions like treemaps or force directed “stick-n-rock” graphs. Processing itself is a programming language for artists rather than an effort specific to visualization.

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.

By: Stephen Few

Stephen Few — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:49:59 +0000

Todd,

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

By: James X. Li

James X. Li — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:59:32 +0000

Very interesting question. I kind of agree with reasons #2 to #5. But #1 seems in conflict with the saying “seeing is understanding”. So must people should know what visualization is. Maybe visualization means something different here.

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.