I'm not sure if I properly translated that phrase from German, but that doesn't matter; it makes sense in English.  Edward Tufte's Beautiful Evidence discusses what makes good visual design, what makes bad visual design, and the importance of using various modes of evidence synergistically  to present information.  I appreciate the approach because I have in the past had a great deal of time understanding visual displays of data. The book is helpful as it shows numerous examples through the ages of how to present data visually, and how not to.  But when I look at data, I still have problems.   I don't know what it is; it's almost like a visual data dyslexia.  Maybe I should get that looked at. 

    Tufte follows a clear and practical formula: discuss a principle of visual design (which he says really should go for all types of design), show a picture that employs the design element in question, then explain why the picture or diagram or chart under discussion works so well.  Though some of the examples became tiresome, I took two things from the text: the principles inherent in good design, and an idea of how to visually deconstruct a piece of visual data just as I would a text. 

     Tufte backs up these assertions with sound principles.  The Fourth Principle of analysis and presentation of data is to, "Completely integrate words, numbers, inages, diagrams (131)."  Tufte elaborates: "Too often in scholarly research, in social science at least, there is a certain narrowness in the choice and use of evidence...Pre-specifying the mode of relevent information or the explantory method may produce a tendentious misalignment of evidence (131)."  This was relevant to me because I had always looked at charts and graphs as being an impediment to my understanding of a given text.  This may be my fault, but it may also have something to do with how scholars put graphs and charts (some well-designed, others not so much) at the back of the article or book, physically and intellectually, as far as Tufte is concerned, separate from the written text.  Data presented as such is without context and without merit. 

     I also found the discussion of how we need to use evidence of all types together to be particularly helpful.  I hope I can implement some of the sound principles Tufte discusses both in the projects in this class and next year when I complete my thesis work.  It's important to remember that data is our friend, not our enemy.  Data has taken on, I believe, a distant, almost out-of-reach guise.  The word Tufte uses to describe data, evidence, hits closer to home.  If you're not a scientist or a computer programmer, the word data probably doesn't mean very much to you.  Evidence, on the other hand, is the life-blood of all research, writing, and visual displays.  When we look at it that way, it becomes more plausible to use  it it all its modes and incarnations. 

In Beautiful Evidence, one point that struck me was Tufte’s discussion on the ambiguity of arrows. He discusses the problems with arrows flowing in a single direction and how replacing arrows with verbs would provide a clearer concept in graphing (64-67). But how do we establish a level of specificity without excluding other significant interpretations or ideas that may be, essentially, infinite? Tufte later discusses the problems surrounding PowerPoint in this exclusive and misleading form of delivery.  How do we reconcile the gaps between the clarity of information we seek to provide and the exclusion that will result through such clarification?

Another point that Tufte emphasizes is the disconnect which can result when research and design are alienated in the creation of a document.  He uses the example of Megan Jaegerman’s work on “Spotting a hidden handgun”, explaining that the “design amplifies the content, because the designer created the content” (117). Technology has made this possible by empowering individuals to cross areas of their expertise. So a writer/researcher can use programs that enable them to perform the job of a graphic artist, bringing their publication to completion without consult. I found it interesting that this very point contradicts the claims of Brown and Duguid, who emphasize the danger in replacing such shared roles and interactions with technological advancement.

I question if there is also contradiction in Tufte’s assertions about how the credibility of analytical graphics is compromised by the optical clutter perpetuated by software companies (61). It’s my understanding that part of Tufte’s point here is that we need to use visuals in a way that is effective and in support of the information, but aren’t the very production methods that Tufte condescends a reflection of the same technologies that have bridged the disconnect between research and design?

However interesting, I found this book difficult to digest.  Hopefully I'm not oversimpilfying these issues.

In his book, Beautiful Evidence, Edward Tufte states that the point of evidence is “to assist the thinking of producer and consumer alike.” Tufte explains that scientific or journalistic evidence should be mapped, which Tufte defines as “representational images with scales, diagrams, overlays, numbers, words, images (p. 13).” A technique in effective mapping is the use of sparklines or as Tufte defined “small, high-resolution graphics usually embedded in a full context of words, numbers, images (p. 47).”  Sparklines are a form of datawords, which according to Tufte are “data-intense, design-simple, word-sized graphics (p. 47).” The addition of sparklines in a mapping gives the image texture and depth that it may not have had without their inclusion.  Sparklines are a powerful mapping tool that may boost evidence into the realm of beautiful evidence.

In Sunday, March 1, 2009 online edition ofThe New York Times, an article titled "Why is her Paycheck Smaller?” appeared in the business section. The article is linked to an optional interactive graphic that the reader may follow.

The interactive graph utilizes sparklines to illustrate the pay differences between men and women. The graph is not overly interactive. The user only has the options to click on and change the occupation type and to hover the mouse pointer over the colored circles.

This interactive graph is an example of beautiful evidence as the sparklines enable the reader to view scientific data quickly and easily. If the graph did not exist, the text of the main article would have had to have been bogged down by dense numerical data, which could have confused the reader.

After Edward Tufte released his pamphlet The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching out corrupts within in 2003 and PowerPoint is Evil in the September 2003 edition of Wired Magazine there was quite a backlash from others who perhaps had a more favorable view of the program.  One for example was In Defense of PowerPoint by Donald A. Norman (who it should be noted works for Microsoft). 

Norman makes several points the first of which is that people were making bad presentations and using bullet points long before PowerPoint existed.   He agrees with Tufte that slides are created for the benefit of the speaker, to provide an “outline and reminders of what is to be said.” (Norman) They are used as a crutch for speakers who are nervous, unfamiliar with the material, or inexperienced at presenting.  Norman thinks that Tufte fails to grasp the idea that too much information could ever be offer at one time or in one presentation.  Norman states that “Tufte is a statistician and I suspect that for him, nothing could be more delightful than a graph or chart which can capture the interest for hours, where each new perusal yields even more information. I agree that this is a marvelous outcome, but primarily for readers, for people sitting in comfortable chairs, with good light and perhaps a writing pad. For people with a lot of time to spend, to think, to ponder. This is not what happens within a talk. Present a rich and complex slide and the viewer is lost. By the time they have figured out the slide, the speaker is off on some other topic.”

I tend to agree with Norman on this point.  When listening to PowerPoint presentations I want the slide to be a short version of what the person is saying.  Basically, I just want the main ideas, arguments, and visual evidence in a clear understandable way.  If there is too much information presented than I tend to focus on trying to understand what is on the slide and not what the presenter is saying. However I may feel that way because I am conditioned to view presentations in this way. 

I am skeptical of both of their positions on the level of blame that should be placed on the presenters and the tools that were used to present information about the space shuttle Columbia.  They both think that the slide in question was designed poorly.  Norman acknowledges Tufte’s work and addresses the notion that Tufte may have partially “credited poor PowerPoint slides with contributing to disaster with NASA's space shuttle Columbia.” Norman thinks that this is “Pure nonsense, accompanied by poor understanding of speech making and of the difference between the requirements for a speech-giver, the speech-listener (the audience), and for the reader of a printed document.” Norman thinks that the slide should have had less information on it.  Norman says, “Look, it was a bad slide, but that isn't where the error lay. The error was in the conclusion reached by the experts.” He reiterates again and again that hindsight is 20 20. 

In his book Beautiful Evidence and on his website Tufte shows the slide and analyzes where he thinks that the presenters went wrong.  Tufte thinks that “by using PP to report technical work the presenters quickly damage their credibility... PP is an inappropriate tool for engineering reports, presentations, documentation, and the technical report is superior to PP.” (Tufte 168)  Tufte advocates replacing PowerPoint with Microsoft Word or a “tool with non-proprietary universal formats [which] will make presentations and their audiences smarter.” (Tufte 168)  He also thinks that for “nearly all engineering and scientific communication presentation and reporting software should be a word-processing program capable of capturing, editing, and publishing text, tables, data graphics, images, and scientific notation.” (Tufte 168)

Norman continues on to state that “Readers are not listeners. This means that speech givers should really develop three different documents; Personal Notes, Illustrative slides, Handouts.”  He admits though that he personally does not do any of those things when presenting. 

Overall, I think that both of these arguments have strengths and weaknesses.  In particular, both authors are very bent toward their own viewpoint.  My own opinion of PowerPoint and the Challenger tragedy tend to fall somewhere in between. 

Norman, Donald A. In Defense of PowerPoint.2007. http://www.jnd.org