Why less is not boring
In his book “Envisioning Information,” Edward Tufty writes (translated by Sergey Surganov onwards):
“WE visualize information - to make sense of it; to convey, record and preserve this knowledge - and almost always this is done on the plane of paper or a computer screen. Flight from the plane and increasing the density of the supplied information are the key tasks of information design. Flight from the plane becomes more and more complicated - as the connection between the image data and our three-dimensional world weakens (with increasing abstract values) and as the number of image measurements grows (with the complexity of the data). And, nevertheless, the whole history of the displayed information and statistical graphs - and even more than that, of any means of communication - is, to a greater extent, the history of the development of techniques working to increase the density of information, its complexity, multidimensionality, and even sometimes beauty . ”
Under the density of information, Tufty refers to the amount of information per unit area. If the thesis of increasing the density of information is taken literally and transferred, for example, to the Moscow scheme in Yandex.Maps with all information layers available at the same time, the scheme will be very saturated, with a 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 Tufty consider this to be one of the key tasks of information design? The answers to these questions are given by Tufty himself in the above book: “ WORLD - complex, dynamic, multifaceted; paper - static, flat. How can we show a rich visual world of events and values on plain paper?". Namely, the paper is static, but the screen is dynamic.
But why on paper is it possible, but not on the screen? We will find the answer again in Tufty’s book “Beatiful Evidence”, in the chapter “ Thinking Style and Powerpoint: Expelling Corruption”: “Visual presentation of information usually works much more efficiently when the interconnected data is shown in a single place within our field view. This is especially true for the analysis of statistical data, where the fundamental analytical task is to make comparisons . ” So Tufty makes it clear - increase the density if you need to compare.
According to my observations, a literal understanding of the thesis, without taking into account the features of the data and the working system, leads to the fear of increasing the number of screens in the interface and, as a result, to 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 finite systems), where the main thesis is an increase in the density of information per unit area, and a dynamic and infinite system — an interface.
Artyom Shitov absolute thesis of Tafti absolute in his blog, reflecting on information design. I’ll quote in full:
"There is such a funny thing in nature called information design. Among its fundamental principles, one can single out that a lot of information needs to be shown. The more data you manage to fit onto the media without compromising perception, the better.
However, there is an opinion that this rule is inappropriate for the web. This opinion is based on the assumption that people who are not capable of thinking are sitting at a computer. Adherents of this position advocate for reducing the amount of information per cm², for breaking it into small blocks and for hiding information that the author recognizes as difficult to perceive. And the author is inclined to recognize any information as complex: American usability experts advise against building sentences longer than 7 ± 2 words, placing 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 should not be allowed to think at all.
Those people who call themselves information designers, both in this country and not in this country, perfectly understand that a lot of information should be given. Less is a bore, as Tufty says. Nevertheless, on the web they are afraid to give a lot of information. They try - again - to divide everything into separate blocks, show them in turn, and not give a big picture for comparison. Information density tends to a minimum.
But the web, in comparison with paper, provides much more advantages. Its only drawback is the low resolution. A pixel is always the minimum dot 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 analyze some points.
However, there is an opinion that this rule is inappropriate for the web. This opinion is based on the assumption that people who are not capable of thinking are sitting at a computer.
Thinking is the solution to problems. People who are incapable of thinking are people with impaired brain function, but we are talking about healthy people. Therefore, the genesis of the assumption is not entirely clear.
Adherents of this position advocate for reducing the amount of information per cm², for breaking it into small blocks and for hiding information that the author recognizes as difficult to perceive. Those people who call themselves information designers, both in this country and not in this country, perfectly understand that a lot of information should be given. Less is a bore, as Tufty says. Nevertheless, on the web they are afraid to give a lot of information. They try - again - to divide everything into separate blocks, show them in turn, and not give a big picture for comparison. Information density tends to a minimum.
Here it will be appropriate to answer Artem with a quote from Tufty from the book “Beatiful Evidence”: “Sometimes splitting unsaturated information into small portions may be applicable (flash cards for memorization), sometimes not (comparisons, links, explanations) . ”
So, in the dry residue. To show a complex, dynamic, multifaceted and rich visual world on the screen, we do not 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 techniques from one presentation system to another is more likely to be harmful - do not absolutize the thesis about increasing the density of information and bring it to absurdity.
“WE visualize information - to make sense of it; to convey, record and preserve this knowledge - and almost always this is done on the plane of paper or a computer screen. Flight from the plane and increasing the density of the supplied information are the key tasks of information design. Flight from the plane becomes more and more complicated - as the connection between the image data and our three-dimensional world weakens (with increasing abstract values) and as the number of image measurements grows (with the complexity of the data). And, nevertheless, the whole history of the displayed information and statistical graphs - and even more than that, of any means of communication - is, to a greater extent, the history of the development of techniques working to increase the density of information, its complexity, multidimensionality, and even sometimes beauty . ”
Under the density of information, Tufty refers to the amount of information per unit area. If the thesis of increasing the density of information is taken literally and transferred, for example, to the Moscow scheme in Yandex.Maps with all information layers available at the same time, the scheme will be very saturated, with a 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 Tufty consider this to be one of the key tasks of information design? The answers to these questions are given by Tufty himself in the above book: “ WORLD - complex, dynamic, multifaceted; paper - static, flat. How can we show a rich visual world of events and values on plain paper?". Namely, the paper is static, but the screen is dynamic.
But why on paper is it possible, but not on the screen? We will find the answer again in Tufty’s book “Beatiful Evidence”, in the chapter “ Thinking Style and Powerpoint: Expelling Corruption”: “Visual presentation of information usually works much more efficiently when the interconnected data is shown in a single place within our field view. This is especially true for the analysis of statistical data, where the fundamental analytical task is to make comparisons . ” So Tufty makes it clear - increase the density if you need to compare.
According to my observations, a literal understanding of the thesis, without taking into account the features of the data and the working system, leads to the fear of increasing the number of screens in the interface and, as a result, to 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 finite systems), where the main thesis is an increase in the density of information per unit area, and a dynamic and infinite system — an interface.
Artyom Shitov absolute thesis of Tafti absolute in his blog, reflecting on information design. I’ll quote in full:
"There is such a funny thing in nature called information design. Among its fundamental principles, one can single out that a lot of information needs to be shown. The more data you manage to fit onto the media without compromising perception, the better.
However, there is an opinion that this rule is inappropriate for the web. This opinion is based on the assumption that people who are not capable of thinking are sitting at a computer. Adherents of this position advocate for reducing the amount of information per cm², for breaking it into small blocks and for hiding information that the author recognizes as difficult to perceive. And the author is inclined to recognize any information as complex: American usability experts advise against building sentences longer than 7 ± 2 words, placing 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 should not be allowed to think at all.
Those people who call themselves information designers, both in this country and not in this country, perfectly understand that a lot of information should be given. Less is a bore, as Tufty says. Nevertheless, on the web they are afraid to give a lot of information. They try - again - to divide everything into separate blocks, show them in turn, and not give a big picture for comparison. Information density tends to a minimum.
But the web, in comparison with paper, provides much more advantages. Its only drawback is the low resolution. A pixel is always the minimum dot 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 analyze some points.
However, there is an opinion that this rule is inappropriate for the web. This opinion is based on the assumption that people who are not capable of thinking are sitting at a computer.
Thinking is the solution to problems. People who are incapable of thinking are people with impaired brain function, but we are talking about healthy people. Therefore, the genesis of the assumption is not entirely clear.
Adherents of this position advocate for reducing the amount of information per cm², for breaking it into small blocks and for hiding information that the author recognizes as difficult to perceive. Those people who call themselves information designers, both in this country and not in this country, perfectly understand that a lot of information should be given. Less is a bore, as Tufty says. Nevertheless, on the web they are afraid to give a lot of information. They try - again - to divide everything into separate blocks, show them in turn, and not give a big picture for comparison. Information density tends to a minimum.
Here it will be appropriate to answer Artem with a quote from Tufty from the book “Beatiful Evidence”: “Sometimes splitting unsaturated information into small portions may be applicable (flash cards for memorization), sometimes not (comparisons, links, explanations) . ”
So, in the dry residue. To show a complex, dynamic, multifaceted and rich visual world on the screen, we do not 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 techniques from one presentation system to another is more likely to be harmful - do not absolutize the thesis about increasing the density of information and bring it to absurdity.