tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post6573875753666781126..comments2024-03-07T06:04:27.839-08:00Comments on Museum 2.0: Data Visualization: Honest, Powerful Interpretative DesignNina Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11723930679606298550noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-56400232744254278622008-02-24T16:37:00.000-08:002008-02-24T16:37:00.000-08:00I do hope we see more work or more encouragement o...I do hope we see more work or more encouragement of work that makes the audience ask "what is it?", rather than "why is it?". Work that so purely finds strength in it's own physical existence (rather than an artist's interpretation or story) does have a different connection with the audience - there is a direct interest to the piece that isn't clouded in some unnecessary need to justify it's existence with all sorts of deep and meaningful excuses and/or super-human functionality. That's my opinion based on watching people approach my sound/chair at exhibitions. I'm writing my Royal College of Art dissertation on the matter in hope that I can convince my tutors to stop asking me to attach stories to my work.<BR/><BR/>Good article!<BR/><BR/>M Plummer-FernandezUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17310410475443808157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-62445290748845156272008-02-11T07:00:00.000-08:002008-02-11T07:00:00.000-08:00I hope someone checked the copyright issues with t...I hope someone checked the copyright issues with the blogging software vendor also called MoveableType... :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-59430209094149147622008-02-09T04:33:00.000-08:002008-02-09T04:33:00.000-08:00hello, all:This is a topic that I have been thinki...hello, all:<BR/><BR/>This is a topic that I have been thinking about a lot from several different angles. Several years ago, I had a chance to work with JPL and met Eric deJong, who introduced me to the complexitites of turning bits into pictures, particularly when the bits were gathered from the surface of Venus. Felice Frankel is a photographer who works along side scientists in their labs to make their work more visible. For two years, she ran a conference called Image and Meaning that brought together visualization people from all different fields. Here is the web site from the last conference http://www.imageandmeaning.org/. Felice is very provocative and thought-provoking about what is involved in creating images from data.<BR/><BR/>More recently, we are working with Katy Borner, an information scientist who did the exhibition called Places and Spaces: Mapping Science (can't do without those colon-ized titles). http://www.scimaps.org/ She works with a group of scientists who map relationships between sciences, just as google maps relationships between people who search on the word "cruise" and people who might like peanut butter. The exhibition is ambitious<BR/><BR/>Rubin and Hansens work is a very elegant construction that raises some interesting questions. Hansen, as I recall, is a statistician who used to work for Bell Labs, and Rubin is a media artist. What are the algorithms that Hansen uses to select the words that show up in the installation? Does it matter to the audience? Without reading the label does the audience care or have an affective response to the idea that these are somehow "real words" from some "real source?" And is that source less real for having been extracted based upon a choice that Hansen made? <BR/><BR/>As the information deluge washes over us and as data is increasingly available only in bits, visualization and mapping are fundamental to how scientists work. And it will be very useful for us to help people understand this. It is a really fruitful area for exploration, and Museum 2.0 is on the case, again! Good job, Nina.Eric Siegelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07845160939767852736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-46518272124101994012008-02-08T14:18:00.000-08:002008-02-08T14:18:00.000-08:00Great comments, folks. I think they both relate t...Great comments, folks. I think they both relate to the same question: is data visualization just another way to package information for surface-level consumption?<BR/><BR/>In one way, the answer is yes. Seeing the data itself doesn't fundamentally make the related content more meaningful. But when it's done well, I find myself browsing more deeply through data visualizations than I do through standard push content. There's often more there to look at, and there's a feeling of uncovering layers of information and meaning, that you can peel back the interpretative overlay and really get a feeling for the guts. So in a tangible way, it's my uninformed guess that good data design generates longer dwell time with a content experience, and more exploratory behavior. And maybe you are exploring the shapes of the clouds, which I also think is pretty good and something we don't spend enough time doing. In some ways, these visualizations are more sexy versions of cloud-watching that make you more likely to engage in that kind of wandering exploration. To me, it's an under-utilized tool in the design kit, something to be considered.<BR/><BR/>And you're probably right about this not being 2.0, Paul. Although it often stems from collective data (as in We Feel Fine), the result is a push experience. Sometimes I let myself sneak something in that's a bit off-topic. After all, one cannot live on 2.0 alone :)Nina Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11723930679606298550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-53387501777356623002008-02-08T11:20:00.000-08:002008-02-08T11:20:00.000-08:00Hi Nina,I'm wondering if you could expand on one o...Hi Nina,<BR/><BR/>I'm wondering if you could expand on one of your final statements: <BR/><BR/>"Data visualization helps us be intelligent interpreters on our own, instead of asking someone else to design an interpreted experience for us."<BR/><BR/>The reason I ask, is that many data visualization art pieces, albeit elegant, seem to be inherently "push" technologies. That is to say, they parse selected bits of data for the viewer.<BR/> <BR/><BR/>So how does finding patterns in streams of algorithmically-derived data move beyond the enjoyable exercise of discovering "shapes" in the clouds?<BR/><BR/>Personally, I love these pieces, but I don't think I'd call them participatory or 2.0.<BR/><BR/>On a slight tangent, check out the website Social Explorer "http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/home/home.aspx"POW! (Paul Orselli Workshop, Inc.)https://www.blogger.com/profile/05111591384018210698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-37703832876515097892008-02-08T10:21:00.000-08:002008-02-08T10:21:00.000-08:00I had noticed that you had a link to Information A...I had noticed that you had a link to Information Aesthetics in your side bar -- one of my personal favorites -- I'd also suggest interactivearchitecture.org.<BR/><BR/>All information is interpreted, no matter how it is displayed. I enjoy very much the work of Edward Tufte in this regard. But although he would suggest that perhaps data can be made more accessible and usable, it's never entirely neutral. <BR/><BR/>Data that is "raw" is foreboding and thus presents the idea that it is not be understood. And thus creates a moat around itself of inaccessibility. Inaccessibility is not neutral. It's defiantly classist. <BR/><BR/>As Tufte has shown in his research that the best information design throughout history is about targeting the audience and making the information clear to the reader. The worst examples do neither or misrepresent information (often with horrible consequences). <BR/><BR/>I suppose that the main issue with just making something "pretty" is does that create a situation where meaning is obscured. Is it surface over presentation. Does the viewer walk away with anything other than, "that's cool what they did with the statistics about the national debt/deaths from pediatric AIDs/incidence of breast cancer" but is unable to be any closer to understanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com