andreaLR03

This article was interesting because it approached design from a very serious angle. I knew vaguely about the Challenger tragedy before reading this article but, I was unaware there was such suspicion before the launch and that scientists wanted to cancel the launch. Successful graphs or not, I would think NASA would not launch a rocket if they had serious doubt about the safety. I'm very shocked they would put so many people, and so much work in serious jeopardy just to meet a deadline.

In addition to the willingness to ignore scientists protesting the launch, the whole NASA department seems to be a little confused during this time. Why was there protest to the launch only days before it was going to happen? I'm assuming it takes years to build, plan and fund such a monumental operation. Why would such a detrimental detail take so long to rise to consciousness? It seems very strange to me. I always tend see big organizations in a different light, like if something is really important and has a lot of money, wouldn't they be obliged more than anyone else to follow the rules and double check their path? Situations like this show the fallible nature of all people and that every advancement and organization shouldn't be completely trusted by the public and should remain under constant scrutiny.

The information charts made before the launching and the way they were presented seemed very convoluted to me. It seemed strange that they made 13 charts, each focusing on different information. I think that less is more, the more information one is presenting the more confusing it is for a viewer to understand. To get an understanding of something all the information must be together. That seems fairly obvious, so it's kind of strange to read about these charts.

The charts used during the trial after the accident were not much improved for the charts used before it. They focused on imagery using little rockets labeled with numbers. To me, these charts communicated almost nothing. They were really busy, and the numbers were so small, especially compared to the goofy over-sized graphics. I didn't like looking at these charts, much less did I feel like making the grand effort to understand the information they were trying to inform me of.

Reading about this put into perspective the importance of design in areas aside from advertising, and making maps. Design needs to work hand in hand with research. Even with great, full information data bases, design is crucial. Bad design can turn something very important into something completely meaningly. In this way, design is kind of dangerous.