I have a confession: I’m not really a very good data designer. Okay, I’m pretty good at many parts of information design, but when it comes to visualizing hundreds or even thousands of data points and creating a beautiful and effective visualization, it’s fairly likely you’ll find me with my head down on my desk crying like a 4 year old.

The incredible data visualizations that you’ll find at The New York Times or Information is Beautiful or Visualizing.org make me insanely jealous. And so, I couldn’t wait to get my copy of Nathan Yau’s just-published guide to this whole mysterious world.

Nathan is a contributor to one of the pre-eminent sites on this topic, Flowing Data. I’ve been a fan and reader of both for a while.

While a number of other books have addressed data visualization, the ones I have read have mostly been concerned with the end products. Most are more coffee table book than how-to. Visualize This, on the other hand, may be the first true handbook for how to technically create so many of these interesting charts and graphs. 

The reader is taken step by step through the creation of numerous styles and categories of visualization. Sprinkled throughout are solid tips on design, statistics and other resources for those interested in this field. The book is written with a good sense of humor and practicality, and it rarely feels academic.

But, this isn’t to say that the material is easy to digest…

To be honest, I didn’t anticipate how technical this book was going to be. It wasn’t long into the book before Nathan started talking code. Code, as in Python, PHP, Javascript, HTML and his favorite, an open source program simply called “R.” From the descriptions, even a “program” like R still requires writing and pasting in lines of code to create charts. Don’t look for a user-friendly GUI. This is not your father’s spreadsheet program.

And speaking of Excel…well, there’s just not a whole lot spoken of it here. Despite the fact that many (but certainly not all) of the charts discussed can be created at least initially in Excel, and despite the fact that included in the book is a Flowing Data user survey showing that most (31%) of readers use Excel to visualize data, Microsoft’s program is largely ignored after a perfunctory introduction. The how-to’s in every chapter take the user through creating bar charts in R and donut charts in a coding toolkit called Protovis (wasn’t that the software company in War Games?) The introduction to the latter begins with, “The first thing you do is create an HTML page…” All this for a donut chart which is essentially a pie chart with a hole in the middle?

Perhaps the problem I have is not with the book’s decision to ignore more user-friendly solutions, but the fact that there are no powerful one stop shop user-friendly software solutions for data visualization. Even if one insists that I am just intimidated by coding (true), Nathan still explains that he imports almost all of his coded visualizations into Adobe Illustrator in the end to make them look good from a design standpoint. So clearly, all these software solutions only get you halfway there.

Perhaps someone will create the Adobe Photoshop or Final Cut Pro of data visualization one day. But until that time, anyone serious about playing in this space must have this book for the very detailed step by step instructions found within.

I really am a fan of Nathan and his work, but this is a book for a determined data designer who has the patience and drive to learn multiple new software and programming tools. My feeling is that this is an investment too involved for most graphic designers or for the average civilian who often presents data.

The increased interest in information graphics has also brought increased debate over their use, abuse and effectiveness. Connie Malamed over at Understanding Graphics even questions the correct usage of the terms “infographics,” noting that most of the time, “infoposter” is more appropriate. (I even use the term “data collage” in certain cases.)

There is no question that infographics and data visualizations are becoming powerful communication tools in journalism, online and in business. One of my colleagues credits the creation of an infographic for one of our client’s products with getting an important news article placed in a major national paper. The infographic itself was never printed, but it successfully “sold” the story to the newspaper.

NiemanWatchdog.org recently criticized and cautioned the media for misuse of infographics in covering the Bin Laden killing. They rightly point out that just because you’re drawing a picture instead of using words, you still can’t make stuff up. (Would you make up sales numbers if you used a bar chart instead of prose?) They laid out 6 rules journalists and the media should follow in using infographics.

Chartjunk Dustup

Stephen Few is one of the leading voices in data design and his books and site are must-reads. He is a passionate advocate for simplicity and clarity in charts, and he recently reignited a debate over whether there actually is any merit in the type of chartjunk that Edward Tufte rails against.

Last year a group of researchers published a study arguing that embellished USA Today-like charts and graphs are actually more “sticky” and communicative to a reader than Few’s/Tufte’s more spartan styles.

Stephen wrote a critical article respectfully taking exception to the methodologies and findings of the researchers. 

If you’re not Tufte-d out, both Few’s article and the original study, are worth a read. Plus, Bruce Gabrielle gives a nice summative overview of the study and its problems at SpeakingPPT.

Few vs. McCandless

Stephen also ruffled a few feathers by criticizing on his blog the work and style of David McCandless. There were a lot of comments back and forth on Stephen’s post and even more in a post on Flowing Data, one of the top sites dedicated to information design. 

If you’re not familiar with McCandless’ work, a good introduction is his TED talk.

*   *   *

Well, for what it’s worth, I agree with Stephen Few‘s work and approach. I love David McCandless‘s style. I respect Edward Tufte, and I also admire Nigel Holmes, whose work is often held up as representative of needless chartjunk and embellishment. (But yes, Nigel, you do need to work on that website of yours…)

All that said, I disagree with all of them to varying degrees when it comes to certain things. But I’m glad there is so much passion and that the debate is so lively! Information design is a continually and rapidly developing discipline that holds great promise. I’m seeing firsthand major companies desperate to be able to visually communicate their stories elegantly, succinctly and smartly. Hardly a day goes by now in which the word “infographic” is not part of some conversation at work.

And I’m not even going to go into “Big Data,” a tidal wave of an issue McKinsey just released a large report about.

Oh, and by the way, I’m hiring a full-time information designer…know anyone?