The Boston view — On tools, atlases and cages
A column by Paolo Ciuccarelli
When asked about the most important tools for someone working on data visualization, I often give one of two answers, depending on the context: it’s either “pencil and paper” or “history”. The latter is usually received with more skepticism, being history less obvious as a tool than a pencil. But it’s indeed a very powerful one. No matter what is the questions you are dealing or the insight you are searching for with your dataset, it’s almost certain that someone in the past had a similar issue — and found a solution for it. Unfortunately, history of graphical representation of data is vastly unknown, even if it’s easily and openly accessible through the Web.
One of the online seminars and talks I could attend in these weeks — thankfully not all events are cancelled — was precisely about history and data visualization. Being Michael Friendly and Sandra Rendgen the main speakers, I couldn’t miss it. You can watch it online, so I’ll not write directly about it. I just want to share and recommend here one of the main knowledge sources mentioned in the talk: The David Rumsey Historical Map Collection. It’s a vast archive of maps and statistical atlases produced between the 16th and the 21st century, a resource that it’s worth any spare hours you may be able to gain in these days at home — especially, but not uniquely, if you work on data-related fields.
Anytime I have the chance to browse the Collection, I’m always impressed by the number of visualizations, charts and visual patterns produced a hundred (and more) of years ago that can be hardly found in any report today and may even look original and innovative to an expert reader. The palette of visual patterns and charts proposed by current visual analytic tools may appear reductive when compared to those atlases. So, here is my point: in the quasi-infinite number of potential graphical transformations we may apply to data, we are framed by the often-narrow array of possibilities offered by the tools we use, being also pencil and paper got forgotten. Without a proper educational scaffolding — the one that designers have, for example — it might be very difficult to imagine something that goes beyond what the tools provide. It doesn’t mean that this is always necessary: those palettes of charts and visual patterns have been carefully designed to address the most common analytical tasks. But that’s not always the case: more nuanced needs are emerging — especially for sharing the results of the analytical processes — and our capacity to produce meaning with data could be caged by the limited amount of meanings that the actual tools propose. Navigating the Rumsey collection can be a good way to overcome those limits and expand our horizon.
Paolo Ciuccarelli
Center for Design, Northeastern University
