Rachel+H+R03

It is sad to think that the tragic accident of the Challenger could have been avoided. This was a situation where there was debate on weather or not to launch, there was skepticism, this wasn't just a freak accident that no one saw coming. There were trained professions, Thiokol, the builders of the rocket being flown, who felt it the launch needed to be postponed the next day. They felt so strongly about this that the night before they constructed 13 graphs to prove to NASA administration that the rocket's o-rings were not resilient enough to function properly in cold temperatures. The scientists, however, had a had time communicating this to officials because of several reasons. Yes, their charts were crude and unprofessional but they also failed to display enough data to make the correlation obvious between O-ring distress and temperature to NASA administrators. Thiokol in hindsight made the correct argument, not to launch, but because of their inability to display the evidence in clear, concise charts that their audience could understand they were disregarded and turned down. Perhaps, the media pressures were more threatening than the data presented, it had to have played some role in their decision.

After examining the graphs for myself I am surprised at how poorly they were designed particularly the ones presented to the commission who was investigating the Challenger accident. Chartjunk overpowers the the entire page of most of the charts, the rocket icons are distracting and their arrangement creates many awkward negative shapes. In one of the charts the actual data is obstructed by the placement of the icons, making the SRM numbers hard to distinguish. The shading and crosshatching technique used to identify various levels of O-ring erosion is hard to decipher on the rocket icons because it blends in and doesn't move from lightest to darkest in correlation with least to most damage, color coding would have been a better way to differentiate. I do think in this case that the rocket icons were unnecessary, as they served no real purpose, but that in certain situations icons can help in understanding.

Information Design Videos

Specky Boy

The Gestalt Principles

Edited from the original, found here: http://graphicdesign.spokanefalls.edu/ Gestalt is a psychology term which means "unified whole". It refers to theories of visual perception developed by German psychologists in the 1920s. These theories attempt to describe how people tend to organize visual elements into groups or unified wholes when certain principles are applied. These principles are: Similarity Similarity occurs when objects look similar to one another. People often perceive them as a group or pattern. The example above (containing 11 distinct objects) appears as as single unit because all of the shapes are similar. Unity  Unity occurs because the triangular shapes at the bottom of the eagle symbol look similar to the shapes that form the sunburst. When similarity occurs, an object can be emphasized if it is dissimilar to the others. This is called anomaly. The figure on the far right becomes a focal point because it is dissimilar to the other shapes.    Continuation Continuation occurs when the eye is compelled to move through one object and continue to another object. Continuation occurs in the example above, because the viewer's eye will naturally follow a line or curve. The smooth flowing crossbar of the "H" leads the eye directly to the maple leaf.    Closure Closure occurs when an object is incomplete or a space is not completely enclosed. If enough of the shape is indicated, people perceive the whole by filling in the missing information. Although the panda above is not complete, enough is present for the eye to complete the shape. When the viewer's perception completes a shape, closure occurs. Example Proximity Proximity occurs when elements are placed close together. They tend to be perceived as a group. The nine squares above are placed without proximity. They are perceived as separate shapes. When the squares are given close proximity, unity occurs. While they continue to be separate shapes, they are now perceived as one group. The fifteen figures above form a unified whole (the shape of a tree) because of their proximity.    Figure and Ground The eye differentiates an object form its surrounding area. a form, silhouette, or shape is naturally perceived as figure (object), while the surrounding area is perceived as ground (background). Balancing figure and ground can make the perceived image more clear. Using unusual figure/ground relationships can add interest and subtlety to an image. Figure The word above is clearly perceived as Figure with the surrounding white space ground. In this image, the figure and ground relationships change as the eye perceives the the form of a shade or the silhouette of a face. This image uses complex figure/ground relationships which change upon perceiving leaves, water and tree trunk.

Infographic - Forced Focus

A little inspiration as you work on your personal timelines: Forced Focus

Heidi+M+R03

Before reading this article I had very little knowledge of the challenger, and what had happened. I had heard that the mission had failed and that was about it. I was very shocked that many of the engineers knew the risks of this mission, yet they still decided to put peoples lives in danger. Part of what I think why they continued to follow through with the mission was due to money. NASA had a lot invested in this launch and they did not want to waste that, but at the same time the repercussions of failure probably costed them even more than if they were to make the needed changes and reschedule the launch.
I think that it is important to take note the charts that were made, they showed images of "cute" lil rockets, but were done in a hurry. Due to this the engineers mistakenly used slides in their presentation favoring the launch, when really there were some huge risks involved. Tests for the O ring in different cold conditions had not been preformed and thus did not portray the possible risks to NASA. If the information and graphics had been provided in a more compelling serious manor I feel that people would not have allowed this mission to go forward. It is so important when providing information that is going to effect the lives of people, that not only good data is used, but also good design. By keeping everything clean and to the point people will be able to understand the risks easier.
After reading this and being shocked at how it all played out, I realized that if we do not portray our information in design clear as well, it may not mean that people are going to die, but rather some other sort of repercussion may be a result.

The Resume is Dead

The Bio is King

EmilyW.R03

The Challenger explosion was a great tragedy that could have been prevented. It is a sad day when money, power, politics, and arrogance are put before the lives of people. After every great accident there is always a distribution of blame. In this case it was the carelessness of the scientists who knew the dangerous conditions that previous data showed would corrupt the integrity of the o-rings during the take off and their failure to get that information through, and the irresponsibility of the leaders who didn't take the time to look at the big picture and say, "these scientists are telling us not to go through with the launch"(!).

These scientists were at the top of the line in their fields and they failed to communicate because of something as simple as the quality of their charts. They sent 13 charts and not one of them got through to the people that were not on the science end of the whole proceeding. Its hard to imagine that this could have happened because this is a very important and crucial bit of information that they had to get through. It would be thought that they would spend the utmost care when designing graphs that would make the decision where lives were at stake. Maybe the scientists thought the graphs were clear coming from the side of already understanding the data and they just didn't envision how they would look to someone who didn't know anything about the data. But this just seems very irresponsible and careless to overlook the fact that this information was new to the people they had to convince and that it was crucial that they did convince them.

The people who made the decision for the Challenger to launch were already set in their decision before they even looked at the charts. They knew they wanted that shuttle to go and they were angry that the scientists even brought up a dispute to have it not go that day. They deliberated the charts and they some how found a way to justify the launch of the shuttle would go through. They charts did not give "sufficient evidence" according to them but it is my thought that they were not really looking that hard at the reasons not to go. I wonder how they must have felt when they watched the explosion the next day and knew the whole country was watching too.

The way information is presented is so important in every aspect. Its amazing to think of how much we are all effected by information and the spread of data on a daily basis. The only thing that makes information hold it's important is the way it is communicated. For, if the message isn't presented in an effective way, it can be changed or lost along the way. In the case of the Challenger the information that had to get across failed and the cost was enormous, not only for the people who died but all of their families and all the people who saw this happen.