Category: transparency

Categories
exam readings information representation transparency visuals

Exam reading: “Visual display of quantitative info”

For a “traditional” (i.e., not community- or critical theory-based) approach to design of graphics, I’m including two books by Edward Tufte on my reading list. There’s a certain set of information visualization people that love his work, but a set of critical theorists and rhetoricians that regards it as arhetorical and emphasizing words (and data) over visual elements. Anyway, here’s the first book on my list:

Edward Tufte. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 2nd ed. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 2001.

Summary: Tufte views infographics as “paragraphs about data;” however, design is universal- like mathematics rather than language. Graphics reveal data at several levels (overview to fine-grained), should be transparent, avoid distorting data, be information-dense, encourage comparisons, and be closely integrated with text, statistics, and datasets. Tufte briefly discusses the history and various types of graphics (data maps, time-series, “space-time narrative,” & relational graphics). Has chapters dedicated to graphical integrity (e.g., avoid distortions of area or scale, provide context), “data-ink” ratio=”data-ink”/total ink used to print graphic (higher better) and “chartjunk”-decorative features that don’t add interpretive info. Graphical elements should serve >1 function (e.g., position, size, color, and shape of data points can all reveal different dimensions). Also discusses data density= number of entries in data matrix/area of data graphic – idea is to try to maximize data density (maps as example of type with high data density); graphics can be smaller than we may think. Likes “small multiples”: multiple small graphics with the same format, but providing comparisons bet. changing variables (likens these to movie frames). Graphical elegance=simple design + complex data. Discusses appropriate uses of words to tables to graphics.

Comments: Outlines several reasons for continued problems with graphics: lack of quantitative training for artists, idea that statistical data are boring, idea that graphics are unsophisticated. Ideas that graphics should be transparent and conventions are universal don’t fit with rhetoric of design (though does recognize deliberate “distortion” of data as rhetorical decision). He gives several ideas for simplifying/modifying current forms; assumes people will accept these if they see them enough (resistence to new formats can be easily overcome by designers).

Links to: Kostelnick & Hassett (rhetorical design); Tversky (different emphasis on maps as data viz)

Categories
exam readings identity knowledge work transparency

Exam reading: “Essential McLuhan”

This book includes selected works by Marshall McLuhan, a popular figure in cultural criticism:

Summary: McLuhan’s main thesis is that the media by which we communicate are powerful shapers of psychology and culture. Media are our ways of extending human sense organs into the environment. When new media technologies are introduced, the levels of different senses used by people shift (e.g., writing started to emphasize vision, and eventually print enabled logic, 3-D perception, and the individual ego). There’s a fundamental difference between vision (acts to separate people from their environment) and all other senses (immerse people in their environment). Non-literate cultures (he includes those using non-alphabetic writing in this group) exist in primarily auditory, tribal societies, while alphabet-using cultures are visual and civilized. Electronic media are in the process of making the entire world auditory and tribal; these media affect feeling, not thought. Media are more important than the message, in terms of influencing society. Even visual media are changing-the juxtaposition of multiple visual elements creates a symbolic landscape, in contrast to single linear chains of argument & evidence. Holistic/systems thinking is the new paradigm; we will no longer need specialists, because generalists immersed in the new sensory paradigm will be able to figure everything out.

Comments: McLuhan’s formulation of the relationship between media use & culture is strongly deterministic. Distinguishes between “hot” (aural, “hyperesthetic,” demand low participation by audence) and “cool” (visual, detached, demand high audience participation) media, but contradicts himself about which technologies are which and where writing fits in- I don’t find this formulation convincing (I’m sticking with the vision/other senses distinction, which at least he’s consistent about). Uses some questionable (from a sociology perspective) interpretations of examples from Africa and China to support his ideas about alphabetic literacy. McLuhan’s style of writing and futuristic bent is horoscope-like: it’s easy to pick out predictions that seem to have come true while ignoring those that have not.

Links to: Feenberg (technological determinism); Ong (more scholarly analysis of media & representation); Brown & Duguid (knowledge work cheerleader)

Categories
exam readings hypertext identity transparency visuals

Exam reading: “Writing space”

I’ve probably read at least parts of “Writing Space,” by Jay David Bolter, in three different courses so far. It’s clearly been an influential book in the T&T field (though of course some authors love it, while others use it to argue against):

Summary: Bolter explores the ways in which digital media are changing traditional “writing spaces:” the material & virtual fields of writing that are determined by both technology and the ways it’s used. One important way this happens is through remediation: a new medium taking the place of an older one while borrowing its conventions. For Bolter, one of the reasons new media are adopted is that they bring a greater sense of immediacy, derived from either increased transparency of the medium (“looking through”) or increased hypermediacy (awareness of the medium; “looking at”). Bolter focuses on the ways that the Internet, particularly hypertext, remediate older technologies (e.g., linking is a rhetorical tool that allows associational (non-linear) expression; lack of closure; increased participation from reader). One key feature is the use of visuals in online writing that are not constrained by the text; visuals may replace text or serve as visual puns, and text may try to become as vivid as visuals (ekphrasis). If writing is a metaphor for thought (and writing systems for our sense of self), then “multilinear” hypertext may be more like the associational mind thinks and reflect our postmodern identity. Writing spatializes time (i.e., speech)- going from print to hypertext is in some ways like returning to conversational modes of oral dialogue.

Comments: Bolter suggests that the increased use if visuals is an attempt to get rid of arbitrary symbol systems (i.e., the alphabet) and return to picture writing. However, modern picture writing differs from preliterate picture writing in that more abstraction can be expressed (e.g., icons). Also discusses semiosis (movement from one sign to another via reference); to read is to interpret semiotic meaning in the difference between the signs (e.g., intertextuality, linking).

Links to: Hayles (hypertext literature); Ong (writing systems and thought)

Categories
exam readings pedagogy research methods/philosophy transparency visuals

Exam reading: “E-crit”

This post is a summary of E-Crit: Digital media, critical theory, and the humanities by Marcel O’Gorman. I’ve read this book before and used some of the concepts in a paper- I thought I would read something that was a bit review after the last book I read… After reading Opening Spaces, it was interesting to see how this book really focuses on postmodern methods without taking ethical considerations into account (though political considerations are part of it). The intersection of these two texts makes me think of a series of blog posts on iblamethepatriarchy.com which look at the intersection of feminist criticism and postmodern evaluations of art (pretty thought-provoking). Anyway, one of the comments to a post there said that exposure to feminist interpretation ruins all art, because you can no longer look at art without thinking about the material and social conditions under which that art was made. (Not entirely sure what the connection is here, but O’Gorman does a lot of postmodern art analysis as part of his argument.) So if you’re an art lover, maybe better not to follow that link…

Summary: O’Gorman is trying to lay out a shift in academic methods that will revitalize humanities work by taking advantage of possibilities inherent in digital media.  For him, academic disciplines are fragmented, hierarchical and print-centered, which leads to interpretation (hermeneutics) and repetition rather than creativity (heuritics).  He foregrounds three types of “remainder”/“others” of academic discourse: puns/nonlinear transitions, digital media, and imagery.  He introduces “hypereconomy”- the use of “hypericons” to connect a network of discourses and lead to intuitive exploratory linkages between them. One big emphasis is on picture theory: images are subjective (non-transparent) and in a struggle with text (think LOLcats-text and image can be contradictory and create new meanings).  He contrasts the educational strategies of Ramus (classifying & compartmentalizing knowledge without reference to random mnemonic devices) to the work of Wm. Blake (image/text contradictions, opposition to creating conformist students).  He calls hypereconomy a “technoromantic” method of expression- using subjective, affect-based interpretations of print and images to create a bricolage of sorts.  These constructs incorporate four primary images: personal, historical, disciplinary, and pop-culture (he adds in a written interpretive component when assigning them in his classes).  Part of what they do is promote shifts in the figure/ground relationships in images (via subjective interpretations, “nonsense” connections, and hyperlinking).  O’Gorman speculates that constant exposure to visual stimuli is leading to increased abstract & spatial reasoning.  He concludes by laying out a plan to rejuvenate humanities departments by incorporating digital media studies and criticism: this would add technological “rigor” but still let departments teach criticism of the changing social/technological environment.

Comments: O’Gorman’s main focus seems to be the hypereconomy method as a tool for invention, and the call to incorporate digital media into humanities departments as a way to subvert “technobureaucratic” management of universities seems a bit tacked-on.  Some of the visual theory he builds his argument upon (e.g., Gombrich’s “mental set” of interpretations) isn’t empirically supported (as I recall).  His concepts about non-transparent visuals & language have been the most useful things for me.  I probably fall into the traditional linear-enlightenment camp & am not convinced that hyperconomy projects can actually lead to useful critiques of institutions (a bit too materialist, I guess).  When I first read this book, I had a much stronger reaction to the anti-Enlightenment thread that runs through it- I’m either becoming inured to such a position or starting to reconcile the cognitive dissonances from my previous training…

Links to: Bolter (remediation, transparency)