Why less does not mean more boring
In his book “Envisioning Information” Edward Tufti writes (in the translation of Sergey Surganov and on):
“ WE visualize information - to comprehend it; to convey, record and preserve this knowledge - and almost always it is done on the plane of a paper or computer screen. Flight from the plane and increase in the density of the supplied information are the key tasks of information design. The flight from the plane becomes more and more difficult - as the connection between the imaged data and our three-dimensional world weakens (with an increase in abstract values) and as the number of the measured dimensions grows (with more complicated data). And, nevertheless, the entire history of the displayed information and statistical graphs - and even more, any means of communication - is, to a greater extent, the history of the development of techniques that increase the information density, its complexity, multidimensionality, and even sometimes beauty . ”
Under the density of information, Taft refers to the amount of information per unit area. If the thesis about increasing the density of information is understood literally and transferred, for example, to the Moscow scheme in Yandex.Maps with all simultaneously accessible information layers, the scheme will be very rich, with high density per unit area, but not suitable for study and orientation.
But why is it so important to increase the density of information? Why does tafti think this is one of the key tasks of information design? The answers to these questions are given by Taffy himself in the above book: “ WORLD is complex, dynamic, multifaceted; paper - static, flat. How can we show the rich visual world of events and values on plain paper? ". Indeed, paper is static, but the screen is dynamic.
')
But why is it possible on paper, but not on the screen? We will find the answer again in the book of Taffy “Beatiful Evidence”, in the chapter „ Thinking style and“ Powerpoint ”: banishing damage”: “The visual presentation of information usually works much more efficiently when related data are shown in a single place, within our field view. Especially it concerns the analysis of statistical data, where the fundamental analytical task is to make comparisons ”. So Taft makes it clear - increase the density if you want to compare.
According to my observations, a literal understanding of the thesis, without taking into account the peculiarities of the data and the working system, leads to the fear of increasing the number of screens in the interface and, as a result, trying to fit as much information as possible on one screen. The problem begins when designers try not to notice the difference between the presentation of information with a finite format size and the design of a user interface with infinite interactive space. That is, they transfer information design techniques (static and final system), where the main thesis is an increase in information density per unit area, and an interface to a dynamic and infinite system.
Absolutized the thesis of Taffy Artem Shitov in his blog, reflecting on information design. I will cite in full:
“ There is such a funny thing in nature, called information design. Among its fundamental principles, we can highlight the fact that information needs to be shown a lot. The more data you can fit on the carrier without compromising perception, the better.
There is, however, the opinion that this rule is inappropriate for the web. The opinion is based on the assumption that there are people at the computer who are not capable of thinking. The adherents of this position advocate for reducing the amount of information per cm², for dividing it into small blocks and for hiding information that the author finds difficult to read. And the author is inclined to recognize any information as difficult: American specialists on “usability” advise not to build sentences longer than 7 ± 2 words, to place more than 7 ± 2 elements on a plane, and so on. That is, a priori it is believed that the user is so stupid that he shouldn’t be allowed to think at all.
Those people who call themselves information designers, both in this country and not in this country, are well aware that it is necessary to give a lot of information. Less is a bore, as Taffy says. However, on the web they are afraid to give a lot of information. They try - again - to break everything into separate blocks, to show them in turn, not to give a big picture for comparison. Information density tends to a minimum.
But the web, compared with paper, gives a lot more advantages. Its only drawback is low resolution. A pixel is always the minimum point size, but a pixel on the screen is several times larger than a pixel on paper. But the screen is dimensionless and interactive - why neglect this? "
Let's sort some moments.
There is, however, the opinion that this rule is inappropriate for the web. The opinion is based on the assumption that there are people at the computer who are not capable of thinking.
Thinking is a solution. People who are incapable of thinking are people with brain disruption, but this is about healthy people. Therefore, the genesis of the assumption is not entirely clear.
The adherents of this position advocate for reducing the amount of information per cm², for dividing it into small blocks and for hiding information that the author finds difficult to read. Those people who call themselves information designers, both in this country and not in this country, are well aware that it is necessary to give a lot of information. Less is a bore, as Taffy says. However, on the web they are afraid to give a lot of information. They try - again - to break everything into separate blocks, to show them in turn, not to give a big picture for comparison. Information density tends to a minimum.
Here it is appropriate to answer Artem with a quote from Tafti from the book “Beatiful Evidence”: “ Sometimes crushing unsaturated information into small portions can be applicable (flash cards for memorization), sometimes not (comparison, reference, explanation) .”
So, in the dry residue. To show the complex, dynamic, multifaceted and rich visual world on the screen, we do not necessarily have to resort to techniques that work to increase the density of information per unit area. In addition, the visual presentation of information depends on the nature of the information itself. Therefore, the mechanical transfer of receptions from one system of representation to another would rather be harmful - you should not absolutize the thesis of increasing the density of information and bring it to absurdity.
“ WE visualize information - to comprehend it; to convey, record and preserve this knowledge - and almost always it is done on the plane of a paper or computer screen. Flight from the plane and increase in the density of the supplied information are the key tasks of information design. The flight from the plane becomes more and more difficult - as the connection between the imaged data and our three-dimensional world weakens (with an increase in abstract values) and as the number of the measured dimensions grows (with more complicated data). And, nevertheless, the entire history of the displayed information and statistical graphs - and even more, any means of communication - is, to a greater extent, the history of the development of techniques that increase the information density, its complexity, multidimensionality, and even sometimes beauty . ”
Under the density of information, Taft refers to the amount of information per unit area. If the thesis about increasing the density of information is understood literally and transferred, for example, to the Moscow scheme in Yandex.Maps with all simultaneously accessible information layers, the scheme will be very rich, with high density per unit area, but not suitable for study and orientation.
But why is it so important to increase the density of information? Why does tafti think this is one of the key tasks of information design? The answers to these questions are given by Taffy himself in the above book: “ WORLD is complex, dynamic, multifaceted; paper - static, flat. How can we show the rich visual world of events and values on plain paper? ". Indeed, paper is static, but the screen is dynamic.
')
But why is it possible on paper, but not on the screen? We will find the answer again in the book of Taffy “Beatiful Evidence”, in the chapter „ Thinking style and“ Powerpoint ”: banishing damage”: “The visual presentation of information usually works much more efficiently when related data are shown in a single place, within our field view. Especially it concerns the analysis of statistical data, where the fundamental analytical task is to make comparisons ”. So Taft makes it clear - increase the density if you want to compare.
According to my observations, a literal understanding of the thesis, without taking into account the peculiarities of the data and the working system, leads to the fear of increasing the number of screens in the interface and, as a result, trying to fit as much information as possible on one screen. The problem begins when designers try not to notice the difference between the presentation of information with a finite format size and the design of a user interface with infinite interactive space. That is, they transfer information design techniques (static and final system), where the main thesis is an increase in information density per unit area, and an interface to a dynamic and infinite system.
Absolutized the thesis of Taffy Artem Shitov in his blog, reflecting on information design. I will cite in full:
“ There is such a funny thing in nature, called information design. Among its fundamental principles, we can highlight the fact that information needs to be shown a lot. The more data you can fit on the carrier without compromising perception, the better.
There is, however, the opinion that this rule is inappropriate for the web. The opinion is based on the assumption that there are people at the computer who are not capable of thinking. The adherents of this position advocate for reducing the amount of information per cm², for dividing it into small blocks and for hiding information that the author finds difficult to read. And the author is inclined to recognize any information as difficult: American specialists on “usability” advise not to build sentences longer than 7 ± 2 words, to place more than 7 ± 2 elements on a plane, and so on. That is, a priori it is believed that the user is so stupid that he shouldn’t be allowed to think at all.
Those people who call themselves information designers, both in this country and not in this country, are well aware that it is necessary to give a lot of information. Less is a bore, as Taffy says. However, on the web they are afraid to give a lot of information. They try - again - to break everything into separate blocks, to show them in turn, not to give a big picture for comparison. Information density tends to a minimum.
But the web, compared with paper, gives a lot more advantages. Its only drawback is low resolution. A pixel is always the minimum point size, but a pixel on the screen is several times larger than a pixel on paper. But the screen is dimensionless and interactive - why neglect this? "
Let's sort some moments.
There is, however, the opinion that this rule is inappropriate for the web. The opinion is based on the assumption that there are people at the computer who are not capable of thinking.
Thinking is a solution. People who are incapable of thinking are people with brain disruption, but this is about healthy people. Therefore, the genesis of the assumption is not entirely clear.
The adherents of this position advocate for reducing the amount of information per cm², for dividing it into small blocks and for hiding information that the author finds difficult to read. Those people who call themselves information designers, both in this country and not in this country, are well aware that it is necessary to give a lot of information. Less is a bore, as Taffy says. However, on the web they are afraid to give a lot of information. They try - again - to break everything into separate blocks, to show them in turn, not to give a big picture for comparison. Information density tends to a minimum.
Here it is appropriate to answer Artem with a quote from Tafti from the book “Beatiful Evidence”: “ Sometimes crushing unsaturated information into small portions can be applicable (flash cards for memorization), sometimes not (comparison, reference, explanation) .”
So, in the dry residue. To show the complex, dynamic, multifaceted and rich visual world on the screen, we do not necessarily have to resort to techniques that work to increase the density of information per unit area. In addition, the visual presentation of information depends on the nature of the information itself. Therefore, the mechanical transfer of receptions from one system of representation to another would rather be harmful - you should not absolutize the thesis of increasing the density of information and bring it to absurdity.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/251173/
All Articles