Design is not a science. But \u201cnot a science\u201d isn\u2019t the same as \u201ccompletely subjective\u201d. In fact, the critique process has brought discipline to design for centuries. For visualizations which are based on an underlying shared data set, there\u2019s an opportunity for an additional level of rigor: to demonstrate the value of a critique through a redesign based on the same data.<\/p>\n
Criticism through redesign may be one of the most powerful tools we have for moving the field of visualization forward. At the same time, it\u2019s not easy, and there are many pitfalls, intellectual, practical, and social. How can we use the tool of criticism to best advantage, with awareness and respect for all involved? Here are some suggestions, which fall into three categories: maintain rigor, respect for designers, and respect for critics.<\/p>\n
As with a scientific experiment, it\u2019s important to know the reason for a redesign\u200a\u2014\u200awhat is being \u201cmeasured\u201d, in a sense. There are many possible goals for a visualization.\u00a0A critic who creates a redesign should be explicit about the goal\u200a\u2014\u200aand the fact that they may be interested in a different goal than the designer.<\/p>\n
Second, critics must be honest about any simplifying assumptions. If a redesign shows less data than the original, that should be mentioned up front. Otherwise, there\u2019s a danger that any perceived simplicity of a redesign is really just the result of a reduction in data.<\/p>\n
Part of maintaining rigor is acknowledging situations where professional judgments don\u2019t agree, and finding ways to come to an understanding.\u00a0The first step is to have a conversation about the source of the disagreement. Very often it turns out that different professionals have different criteria for success for a visualization, or have different goals in mind; clarifying these is extremely useful to the field.<\/p>\n
All redesigns have the potential to seem adversarial, as if the critic is pointing out flaws in the designer personally, asserting their own superior skills, or even, as assigning some blame for a disaster. But it isn’t a pleasant experience. Therefore making the process more friendly for the designer is a good idea.<\/p>\n
Criticism is hard, as hard as design. Indeed, in established media (books, movies, music) good critics are recognized as experts in their own right. As a field, we should give the same respect to our visualization critics.<\/p>\n
A point for designers is to keep in mind the goal of the critique process: ultimately, none of this is a personal evaluation, but instead a way for the field as a whole to improve.<\/p>\n
Data visualization is still a new field. It\u2019s already become an essential medium for journalists, scientists, and anyone else who needs to understand data. But the medium is far from understood. It\u2019s early still, and there\u2019s a lot of room for improvement. Therefore criticism, and redesign is an essential part of visualization criticism.<\/p>\n
Source:\u00a0https:\/\/medium.com\/@hint_fm\/design-and-redesign-4ab77206cf9#.7l57fdh70<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Design is not a science. But \u201cnot a science\u201d isn\u2019t the same as \u201ccompletely subjective\u201d. In fact, the critique process has brought discipline to design for centuries. For visualizations which are based on an underlying shared data set, there\u2019s an opportunity for an additional level of rigor: to demonstrate the value of a critique through … Continue reading Visualization redesign: Rules of engagement<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1711,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"qubely_global_settings":"","qubely_interactions":"","kk_blocks_editor_width":"","_kiokenblocks_attr":"","_kiokenblocks_dimensions":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"gutentor_comment":0,"qubely_featured_image_url":null,"qubely_author":{"display_name":"vinaykjay","author_link":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/dataviz\/author\/vinaykjay\/"},"qubely_comment":0,"qubely_category":"Uncategorized<\/a>","qubely_excerpt":"Design is not a science. But \u201cnot a science\u201d isn\u2019t the same as \u201ccompletely subjective\u201d. In fact, the critique process has brought discipline to design for centuries. For visualizations which are based on an underlying shared data set, there\u2019s an opportunity for an additional level of rigor: to demonstrate the value of a critique through…","post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/dataviz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1425","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/dataviz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/dataviz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/dataviz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1711"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/dataviz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1425"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/dataviz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1425\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1427,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/dataviz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1425\/revisions\/1427"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/dataviz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/dataviz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/dataviz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}