I have found on Mashable an interesting article about Visualize Mid-Term Elections with Google Maps: While the actual data compilation is very well done–especially the multiple sources using ratings from Cook, Rothenberg, CQ-Roll Call and RealClearPolitics–the navigation leaves much to be desired. It is hard to move between the regions and states given the small map; and I could not figure out how to display this map in full screen view on my 25 inch flat screen. Using a consistent user interface (UI) is fine, but providing the same UI gadget for race and source seems an odd choice. also, some pop-up information can be requested when you click on a particular state which allows you to drill down deeper into data about individual candidates, but the closing x in the right upper pop-up window is sometimes outside the screen. There is an obvious color coding (blue for Dem, red for GOP) provided, but I do not understand why these colors are double coded on the pop-up windows for individual states. Using red font for writing “Safe GOP” might be OK, although double coded, but writing “Toss up” in yellow on white background was not a good idea.

Yesterday, I was preparing a poster for the “2010 CTSA Informatics Key Function Committee All-Hands Meeting” held at the Natcher Auditorium, NIH campus in Bethesda, MD on October 13-14, 2010. We will showcase some usage data of Digital Vita, an application developed by the University of Pittsburgh, which integrates CV management functions with academic social networking and basic research team management and collaboration functions. Initially, the graphs were created using basic functions in Microsoft Excel (see example in Figure 1):

I have converted these graphs into Photoshop, replacing the non-data-bearing frame with a y-axis indicating the range and changing the graph type to reflect that we combine cumulative data and non-cumulative data in one chart. In addition, I have labeled the data directly instead of using a legend reducing the cognitive load for the viewer. I first made a screen shot of the Excel graph and imported it into Photoshop, then I used the vector graph shape tools to draw the chart allowing me to scale it without quality loss. I ended up creating several 700 pixel high JPEGs which I inserted into a Microsoft PowerPoint poster template used by our Department of Biomedical Informatics (see example in Figure 2).

Serendipitously, I have discovered a compilation of funny graphs. Some are quite tasteless, but many have a deeper meaning and may be used among other, more serious graphs, as humorous break. Check out GraphJam.
see more Funny Graphs

Recently, a new PowerPoint-blame article was published by the New York Times titled “We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint” by Elisabeth Bumiller. The article outlines that after NASA and other organizations, now the US military has figured out that you cannot win a war with bullet-point style briefings. The story “PowerPoint of Afghan War Strategy” made it even onto Slashdot where it was widely discussed.
While Bumiller’s article notes in the one of the last paragraphs that “No one is suggesting that PowerPoint is to blame for mistakes in the current wars” it comes pretty close to that (and pretty close to the last PowerPoint-blame article the NYT published in 2003 called “PowerPoint Makes You Dumb“).
While PowerPoint is not a program which promotes or encourages good design, especially when default templates are used, I would caution to blame the current (mis)use of a program instead of addressing potential shortcomings in presentation skills. One should read “In Defense of PowerPoint” by Don Norman, the HCI guru and author of The Design of Everyday Things.

On March 16, 2009, Katrina Kelner, editor of Science Translational Medicine, Managing Editor, Research Journals, Science Magazine gave a talk at NIH which was titled “Publishing in Journals” (sponsored by the NIH Office of Intramural Training & Education). About 7 min into the talk she made a really important point regarding the use of figures: She emphasized that in the past the “printed figure was your data.” However, this was only true in the print publishing-only world. Now, with the advent of digital publishing, the figures in the paper serve only as examples or as an interpretation of the data because there is now the capacity to provide the actual data online for everybody to download and rerun the analysis.
She also talks about image manipulations using Adobe Photoshop and explains what is allowed and what is not allowed. Dr. Kelner shows various examples of gel images/micrographs and what was done to them. Her description includes what are appropriate and what are inappropriate manipulations and what needs to be explicitly declared.
Listen to the enhanced video podcast (mp4, 1:32) or see the overview information about the podcast.

Infographics are visual representations of information, data, or knowledge (see Wikipedia). Pam Dyer, a Seattle-area marketing professional, has compiled 35 social media infographics ranging from the obvious to the obscure.
I like particularly “10 Levels of Intimacy in Today’s Communication” which shows variety in design while being consistent at the same time. Number 14, “The Journey of a Tweet” really helps if you need to explain how Twitter works. This one is matched by number 26, “The Life Cycle of a Blog Post.” And if you are really distracted by all this, then number 15, “The Hierarchy of Digital Distractions” will help you to gauge the level of distraction you currently encounter.

BusinessWeek reports that President Obama has Edward Tufte appointed to help visualizing where the economic stimulus money is going. The article celebrates this decision as a victory for data visualization and for a more transparent government.
It can only be assumed that Tufte received the honor based on his book Envisioning Information which shows displays of high-dimensional complex data, such as maps, charts, scientific presentations, diagrams, computer interfaces, statistical graphics and tables, stereo photographs, guidebooks, courtroom exhibits, timetables, use of color, a pop-up, and many other wonderful displays of information.

Mashable shows a very nice infographic under the headline “State of the Internet Explained In One Giant Infographic.” The interesting twist in this graph is that it does not try to show big numbers or complex percentages, but reduces everything to a random crowd of 100 people. Each person is represented by one circle. All data and relationships are expressed using these circles. However, I am not sure why this metaphor is broken in the middle by displaying an ugly pie chart. Labeling is clear and fonts are well chosen. Well done!

It is not uncommon to find discussion spaces with hundreds to thousands of messages and participants. User-generated content (UGC) is the driving force behind all Web 2.0 applications. How do you visualize such an exchange of ideas?
Today, I found tldr which is “is an application for navigating through large-scale online discussions. The application visualizes structures and patterns within ongoing conversations to let the user browse to content of most interest. In addition to visual overviews, it also incorporates features such as thread summarization, non-linear navigation, multi-dimensional filtering, and various other features that improve the experience of participating in large-discussions.”
Publication about the project: Narayan, Srikanth and Cheshire, Coye – “Not too long to read: The tldr Interface for Exploring and Navigating Large-Scale Discussion Spaces”. The 43rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences – Persistent Conversations Track – Jan 2010.

As reported on Mashable and elsewhere, TrendStream, who publishes the Global Web Index, has created an interesting visualization of the penetration of different social technologies in major markets around the globe. The data come from interviews with 32,000 Internet users in 16 countries. The PDF shows labeled pie charts with overlap. Displaying a grayed out 100% pie and then let each pie piece start at the same baseline is certainly a new way of allowing comparisons which are usually hard in pie charts if the differences are not obvious. The legend states that “The size of the arch’s, represents the audience volume in millions.” [Sentence unaltered from source.] The problem I see is that the thickness of the arches is different in order to improve display, but the thickness seems to represent quantity as well which is apparently not the case, or is it? The display implies two dimensions, angle of the arch and thickness of the arch, but the data is only one-dimensional.