>From Keith Russell ([log in to unmask])

At the Sydney Design 99 Congress, Richard Buchanan made a comment (in
question time), in passing, about the visual nature of Edward Tufte's
works. When I asked him about his comments, he referred me to his review
of Steven M. Kosslyn's book, Elements of Graph Design, (Design Issues,
12:1, Spring 1996, pp. 73-77). I have taken an extensive extract from
this review since the issues raised seem to me to still haunt design,
design research and design criticism.

---------------------------------------------
Extract

Celebrity and fame are typically confused in contemporary life.
Celebrity rests on popular recognition, whether or not such recognition
grows from significant accomplishment. Fame rests on significant
accomplishment, whether or not widely recognized. Edward Tufte's books
on information visualization are more celebrated than famous. A book
that deserves to be famous, though it will probably remain less
celebrated than Tufte's books, is Elements of Graph Design, by Stephen
M. Kosslyn.

Tufte's books have a legitimate claim to being famous: they vividly
demonstrate the existence of a problem in information display and offer
critical analyses that serve as excellent examples of effective design
criticism. Through this demonstration the books have raised general
awareness of the importance of information design, and this is a
significant accomplishment, somewhat along the lines of Richard Saul
Wurman's Information Anxiety. The Visual Display of Quantitative
Information ([Tufte] 1983, reviewed in Design Issues Vol. III, No. 1, by
James Reidhaar) and the colorful sequel Envisioning Information (1990)
are justly praised as contributions to the expanding study of
information visualization in graphs, diagrams, tables, and similar
forms. They are widely read and highly referenced not only in the design
community but among readers in other disciplines where the visual
presentation of complex and not-so-complex information is critical to
effective communication. However, the books are less successful than
their popularity suggests in fulfilling what the author claims as his
intent.

The problem is how little Tufte's books go beyond exhibiting a
phenomenon and critiquing good and bad examples to the more difficult
problem of explaining the phenomenon. We can properly claim to know
something only when we can satisfy four conditions. Inquiry requires
that we demonstrate the existence of a phenomenon and of a problem
embedded in the phenomenon; that we present a reasonable hypothesis
about why the phenomenon is as it is; that we develop the hypothesis
through a variety of examples which reveal the critical qualities or
factors that shape the concrete circumstances and variations of the
phenomenon; and, finally, that we establish principles which explain why
the phenomenon is as it is. In his venture, Tufte, a professor of
statistics at Yale, accomplishes only the first step convincingly, opens
a door on the second step, and falls progressively short in the
remaining third and fourth steps. The books are elaborate and excellent
demonstrations of the existence of a problem, but in the end they are
somewhat dissatisfying. His books purport to reveal principles of
information display, but they actually present only rules-of-thumb,
leaving the reader with a sense that something important has been
revealed, but with little solid understanding that can be transferred
into practice - general rules-of-thumb, but no clear understanding of
the reasons that lie behind and give the necessary strategic guidance
for effective design decisions. This is potentially a problem for
designers and general readers, because it gives the illusion of
knowledge rather than the substance. In this case, Tufte is "understood"
by his readers to the degree that they recognize some of the differences
among ways of presenting information, but they do not come away with as
much substantive understanding as one may expect. This is too often the
case with literature in design - perhaps a sign of how far design
studies has yet to go in developing original inquiry rather than
exhibitions of phenomena, judged by authors to be good or bad. As one
philosopher of contemporary experience - basketball player Bill Russell
- has said, "It is far better to understand than to be understood."





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%