Great edition RJ, thanks for articulating this idea as best as you could!
I have had a similar hunch in the past and you've defined it better than I could.
I have a feeling that focusing on encodings or data treatment to explain a chart only further exacerbates the gap between designer and audience. Most people have no interest in visualization encodings whatsoever, they want to feel that they understand the chart's argument and can employ it in conversation.
I love this metaphor of chart designers as singers in a band. It leaves me thinking that we may be forcing a too-rigid distinction between visualization as a technical tool for creating knowledge and a means for self expression. Maybe they are one and the same, and we should find ways to treat it this way.
Thanks again for these reflections and happy 2025.
1. There’s an old anecdote about when artists gather, they don’t talk about “art” but about the best places to buy paints and brushes.
2.Apple originally bridged this gap in the Macintosh with apps like MacPaint. Perhaps what’s needed is more intuitive interfaces ala Kai’s Tools for Photoshop (r.i.p.).
I've been reading your newsletter for a few years and always found value in it. And I'm aroused by the last one about intuition. I see dataviz primarily as an activity that has nothing to do with art, while art certainly has to do with intuition, so it's difficult for me to align perfectly with your words. But that's not the point of my comment.
I am thinking about the Hex/RGB/HSB part. As I said I'm seasoned - almost 53 - and grew in the CMYK age. That part of your discourse has profound implications in regards to intuition that are untouched by this comment, but I swear that, because of training and experience with printed graphics, I can comfortably decompose a color in CMYK values with a 2 to 3% error range for each of the 4 ranges. Even these days, when I am forcibly driven to begin a design from scratch in RGB and never switch to CMYK (as that design is supposed to be brought to life on screen).
Very interesting topic, please keep on writing about it.
Wow, that's really impressive regarding your familiarity with CMYK. Do you think mixing pigments/inks/paints is more intuitive than light? To me it feels more natural—something we've been doing for far longer.
I don't think that tinkering with inks and naming the results is more intuitive than doing it with light. But I was trained like this, from the mid-90s onwards, while maintaining some contact with professional printers.
And this familiarity is something that came naturally to me; my colleagues at the time, all older than me, were all able to do the same. I don't know if there is a biological or cultural basis behind this ability, but I think that the fact that the RGB system proceeds substantially by subtraction (from 235 down, as you rightly point out) while the CMYK system by addition (from 1 to 100) has an important role: is adding perhaps easier/more natural than subtracting?
It would take a high-level in-depth study by a team of cognitive psychologists to clear it out... but maybe it's not worth it :) I don't think that the work of an editorial graphic designer is that important in today's world.
Since I left the newspaper where I worked for so long and where I almost always work on digital-only projects, I even noticed that my ability to break down color in CMYK has gotten worse :)
Great edition RJ, thanks for articulating this idea as best as you could!
I have had a similar hunch in the past and you've defined it better than I could.
I have a feeling that focusing on encodings or data treatment to explain a chart only further exacerbates the gap between designer and audience. Most people have no interest in visualization encodings whatsoever, they want to feel that they understand the chart's argument and can employ it in conversation.
I love this metaphor of chart designers as singers in a band. It leaves me thinking that we may be forcing a too-rigid distinction between visualization as a technical tool for creating knowledge and a means for self expression. Maybe they are one and the same, and we should find ways to treat it this way.
Thanks again for these reflections and happy 2025.
Have a nice one!
Two observations:
1. There’s an old anecdote about when artists gather, they don’t talk about “art” but about the best places to buy paints and brushes.
2.Apple originally bridged this gap in the Macintosh with apps like MacPaint. Perhaps what’s needed is more intuitive interfaces ala Kai’s Tools for Photoshop (r.i.p.).
I've also heard: "When artists gather they talk about money. When bankers gather they talk about art."
I'm going to stew on the digital painting UI inspirations—thanks!
Hello RJ,
here is Marco, a seasoned information designer.
I've been reading your newsletter for a few years and always found value in it. And I'm aroused by the last one about intuition. I see dataviz primarily as an activity that has nothing to do with art, while art certainly has to do with intuition, so it's difficult for me to align perfectly with your words. But that's not the point of my comment.
I am thinking about the Hex/RGB/HSB part. As I said I'm seasoned - almost 53 - and grew in the CMYK age. That part of your discourse has profound implications in regards to intuition that are untouched by this comment, but I swear that, because of training and experience with printed graphics, I can comfortably decompose a color in CMYK values with a 2 to 3% error range for each of the 4 ranges. Even these days, when I am forcibly driven to begin a design from scratch in RGB and never switch to CMYK (as that design is supposed to be brought to life on screen).
Very interesting topic, please keep on writing about it.
Best regards
Wow, that's really impressive regarding your familiarity with CMYK. Do you think mixing pigments/inks/paints is more intuitive than light? To me it feels more natural—something we've been doing for far longer.
I don't think that tinkering with inks and naming the results is more intuitive than doing it with light. But I was trained like this, from the mid-90s onwards, while maintaining some contact with professional printers.
And this familiarity is something that came naturally to me; my colleagues at the time, all older than me, were all able to do the same. I don't know if there is a biological or cultural basis behind this ability, but I think that the fact that the RGB system proceeds substantially by subtraction (from 235 down, as you rightly point out) while the CMYK system by addition (from 1 to 100) has an important role: is adding perhaps easier/more natural than subtracting?
It would take a high-level in-depth study by a team of cognitive psychologists to clear it out... but maybe it's not worth it :) I don't think that the work of an editorial graphic designer is that important in today's world.
Since I left the newspaper where I worked for so long and where I almost always work on digital-only projects, I even noticed that my ability to break down color in CMYK has gotten worse :)