AndreaLR02

While reading “Layering and Separation” I had a lot of the same reactions as I did while reading the first assignment. I've never give the design of maps and charts much thought, as they seemed really quick sterile and without much intention. Graphic design is much more scientific and rule based than I thought it was. During the TED video we watched today I felt like I really on the same base as the speaker, David McCandless, when it comes to thinking of this generation and it's ability to understand and create successful design just because we've all been surrounded by information our whole lives. I feel like most individuals today know that bright colors used sparingly will stand out and using similar tones for an entire map or chart will create some very confusion imagery. A lot of design is second nature because most everything we see has design in it and that creates a sense of design in us.

At the same time though, I think McCandless made a bold statement saying he knew how to design without going to school or having any artistic background. A lot of elements of design are very subtle and not obvious to the untrained eye. This reading made that more obvious to me. A lot of the examples of poor charts and imagery didn't look wrong to me until I saw the “right” way to present the imagery. I learned really a lot about making charts from only this short article.

I've always created charts using “data imprisonment', that is, by using lots of lines to separate all the information into little boxes. I always thought that by doing this I was creating distinct separation between the data, and thus preventing any mix of or confusion between each individual piece. Through example in this reading I've seen I was actually creating noise in my charts instead of eliminating it. Placing things into boxes creates a lot of negative spaces that can be distracting and awkward. Just by letting the data breathe the eye can organize it on it's own and rest much more easily on what is important without excess information created by unnecessary line work.

The first Marshall signals chart in the reading, which was the “poor” example, looked completely normal and fine to me at first glance. I thought it was pretty easy to understand. When I saw the second, revised example I saw that it did not separate each signal with thick black lines, and used bright color to indicate different details instead of extra line work. The second one was so clearly better and easier than the first. I would have never created the second one if I was making these charts. My knowledge of graphic design is not well enough understood to see such an easy fault. I just don't think the average consumer pulls enough information of the imagery seen everyday to be able to create consistently good design. We are constantly surrounded and influenced by design, but it's not always necessarily good design.