The good.
So what makes for good information (design)?
1. Truthfulness - So data, presumably numbers and facts, making sure that the numbers are accurate and the facts "consistent" with public knowledge. Another component is to maintain honesty. Thus, no tampering with data with malicious intent.
2. Form and Interestingness -in this case, structure and relevance. Both are highly contextualized geographically and with regards to conventional preferences.
3. Utility: Does it carry out its communicative function?
All of that constitutes a “good” visualization. The assumption:
Visualization > Truth
Wherein truth is a subset of Visualization.
1. Truthfulness - So data, presumably numbers and facts, making sure that the numbers are accurate and the facts "consistent" with public knowledge. Another component is to maintain honesty. Thus, no tampering with data with malicious intent.
2. Form and Interestingness -in this case, structure and relevance. Both are highly contextualized geographically and with regards to conventional preferences.
3. Utility: Does it carry out its communicative function?
All of that constitutes a “good” visualization. The assumption:
Visualization > Truth
Wherein truth is a subset of Visualization.
The Beautiful?
Copyright Ben Jones
Form, interestingness, and Function are determined by culture and genre specific conventions for clarity and beauty. Clarity correlate directly with form and function. For some, austere clarity equals beauty. For others beauty is part from clarity, but does not obscure. The Cartesian graph represents the general understanding of the relationship between beauty and clarity. Starting at Quadrant I, the ideal of balanced beauty and clarity, going clockwise, you have clear but ugly, the worst ugly and unclear, and finally unclear but beautiful.
The problem.
The problem is that integrity is redundantly described as "honesty, accuracy, consistency, and truth". As Lithgow put it:
Our desire for integrity—that is, for coherence and consistency with past and current expectations and
obligations of trust—is the foundation for understanding, and understanding (grounded in notions of trust) is
the foundation for expectations of understandability. (2012)
Visualizations "reveal" information according to the existing paradigms of knowledge.
Our desire for integrity—that is, for coherence and consistency with past and current expectations and
obligations of trust—is the foundation for understanding, and understanding (grounded in notions of trust) is
the foundation for expectations of understandability. (2012)
Visualizations "reveal" information according to the existing paradigms of knowledge.