Visualizing Data: On Paul Graham

Being that I've seen Paul Graham speak, have read his book, and am partial to his essays, the talks delivered for Visualizing Data (see below) didn't present a ton of new information.  That being said, it's worth taking a moment to discuss why it is that I enjoy Graham so much, and his most famous analogy between "hackers" and "painters".

Graham's style of speaking and writing is unquestionably authoritarian, and that's the beginning of what I like about him:  he's not afraid to have strong opinions, and to put them out there.  So many commentators today waste their time either pandering to the masses, or being incredibly extreme.  With Graham, you get the feeling that not only does he believe in what he's saying, but that he's given it some real thought.  Even his most caustic opinions (for example, his constant mocking of the Java programming language) are rooted in well thought out and valid positions.

Most of those positions end up being about one of three things:  smart people, hackers, or programming.  Which brings me to the second thing I like about Graham:  he's not afraid to admit that there are smart people out there in the world, and that they behave differently than others.  He's willing to cite the good (high productivity, more inspiration) and the bad (stubbornness, near autistic behavior), but most importantly he's willing to admit that they're smart.  These days we're far too bogged down in a culture where everyone's getting a pat on the head, and Graham is far more inclined to give the truth than to put a rosy tint on everything.

When discussing these super-intelligent "hackers", Graham then takes a stance that (as least when he originally took it) is unique:  he treats them as people and creators.  Computer programming has long been the subject of being compared to engineering and math, as a sort of technical discipline.   Graham takes his unique role as both an artist and a programmer and proposes the opposite: that programmers (or "hackers") are actually creative people who simply use an engineering device and medium as their means of expression.

This treatment culminates in Graham's famous analogy between hackers and painters.  The two groups are unique to each other, Graham supposes, in that they both have two roles: they have to decide what to do, and how to do it.  While many other creative/engineering jobs have two roles for this action (he cites architects and engineers as the "what" and "how", respectively), Graham points out that both painters and hackers are responsible for creating their idea, and then engineering it as well.


Paul Graham: Great Hackers
Paul Graham: Hackers And Painters

Visualizing Data: On Jonathan Harris

 While I'm a week or two late in posting, here are some thoughts on Jonathan Harris, complete with prompts from the Visualizing Data blog...


Do you find his pieces effective? 
Harris seems to desire an emotive, human aspect to his work, and in that sense I would say that his pieces are extremely effective.  He manages to create both visuals and text streams that manage to convey a good sense of emotion and the human element.  Part of this is rooted in his use of live data sets, that add an immediacy and reality to his work.  The randomness of the imagery also serves to deliver a feeling of humanity, as it creates a constant and undefinable imperfection to the work.



What might you change if it were your project? 
I feel as though I might use slightly less saccharine visuals.  While I feel that Harris' visuals are extremely effective, they have a certain pastel, Hallmark quality to them that doesn't quite appeal to me.


What tools (color, motion, etc.) does Jonathan employ to express emotive qualities in his work? 
Harris uses motion almost constantly in his work to relay a feeling of "nowness".  The constant movement creates an unavoidable sense that the dialogue is occurring as you sit there watching it.  He also uses pastel colors (presumably for their "emotive" feel), but as mentioned above, this really doesn't appeal to me.  Even in a site that riffs on the terrorism threat level, Harris still resorts to almost-pastels.


What makes his body of work feel different than Karsten’s or Aaron’s?
Most significantly for me, it's the use of live data.  Karsten and Aaron both obtain data sets, and then create a deliberate and planned visual for them.  Harris' creation of a more data "engine" allows him to use live data off the web, and create an immediacy and reality to his work that the others lack.

Physical Computing: Reaction To Visual Intelligence

Donald Hoffman's "Visual Intelligence" manages to take a relatively conventional concept (that our brain "tricks" us into perceiving much of what we deem "real"), and illustrates it through the novel venue of amputees.  By using the amputees' sensation of phantom limbs, Hoffman creates a tangible and realistic illustration of the disconnect between the physical and the mental world.

While Hoffman's examples do a great job at illustrating the concepts, the concepts themselves aren't exactly novel.  It's a well known fact of many simple schoolyard tricks that the brain can be easily tricked into misperceiving "reality".  Watching movies, smelling one thing while eating another, combining hot and cold sensations - all of these things can allow us to trick our nervous system into perceiving things that aren't "really" there.

In the end, this fact is obvious, but perhaps overlooked because it is so common:  the best thing we can do moving forward is to try and consider how we are really perceiving the world around us, and enlist this as we make choices in design.

Visualizing Data: Reaction To Karsten Schmidt

Karsten Schmidt describes himself as a "Computational Designer", and the description is apt:  most of his design projects are driven by code and generative algorithms.  In stark contrast to Aaron Koblin, who uses small amounts of data from a wide range of individuals, Schmidt uses programatic iterations that generate similarly unique data sets.

The generative nature of Schmidt's work definitely separates it from Koblin's more "techy" work:  While Koblin's pieces simply use data sets with modern visualizations, Schmidt's generate their own data.  In the end, this results in the pieces (which could potentially be seen as more robotic or inhuman) actually having more in common with Koblin's human created data sets.

This conclusion about Schmidt's work brings to mind a number of interesting questions in the area of data, technology, and intelligence.  Specifically: what is interesting about data, and where are its most interesting sources?  Moreover, if data is real or generated, does that make a difference, and what is it about the presentation that gives it a more human feel?

To my mind, Schmidt's work unquestioningly draws attention to the fact that artificial, generated data can be every bit as human as real data sets, perhaps moreso.  Considering it further, this may be a result of the fact that generative data is "growing" in much the same way a group of humans "grow" a widely dispersed data set.  In the end, perhaps it is the life of the data, rather than its end points, that truly define how it is perceived.

Visualizing Data: Reaction To Aaron Koblin

In looking at Aaron Koblin's work, the pieces seem to be divided into two categories:  those that use amazon's mechanical turk to generate data, and those that simply create visualizations of large data sets.  While the visualizations certainly have their appeal, I have to say that I prefer the amazon mechanical turk projects.

The mechanical turk generated data sets not only provide novel visualizations, but also novel ways of generating the data that led to them.  Seeing how data sets that are created at a micro level are still inexact is an interesting analogy for how larger projects can have an inexact nature to them.  What's more, Koblin's visuals are compelling and unexpected.

By contrast, the visualizations that depend on external data seem to suffer from a forced feel of trying to hard to be futuristic or "different", but in fact ending up being cliche.  The idea of mapping flight patterns or telephone lines has been done a million times, while the "House Of Cards" video is utterly reminiscent of needle pads that fit-form to represent shapes.

Out of all of the pieces, my favorite is probably the sheep market:  the representations are novel and humorous, the data collection interesting, and the representation enjoyable to navigate.  In short, it presents some serious concepts about data generation in the modern world while at the same time giving them a humanistic feel.

If anything, that is the shortcoming in Koblin's less enticing work:  the absence of humanity and a feeling of overly-conscious attempts to be futuristic and technologically advanced.  Part of this reaction to Koblin's work is probably driven by over exposure to faux-futurist imagery, but it's also a result of the fact that Koblin's more human works are simply more novel and easier to relate to.

Physical Computing: Real World Technical Observations

This week we were asked to go into the "real world" and observe people interacting with devices, and see how it met with our expectations.  I did just that, but unfortunately had very little to report in terms of results:  Everywhere that I went, people seemed to use devices or interfaces exactly as expected.

I spent some time near an ATM, by the entrances to some buildings, and near some subway metrocard machines.  In all cases, it seemed that the users knew how to use the devices on hand, and simply went through the motions, often almost intuitively.  There are two explanations that I can attribute this two in relation to last week's readings.  

First, it may simply be that people are smarter than the "bad design" critics give them credit for.  Put differently: just because something is poorly designed doesn't mean it's unusable.  It's just that it's sort of a hassle, but that people are adept enough to figure it out.  Take the case of a PC:  I used Windows perfectly well for years.  Now that I use OS X, I'm far happier, but my ability to function hasn't particularly changed.

The second explanation is that it's simply a case of learned behavior:  in a city like New York, people tend to have routines and typical day to day actions.  It may simply be that the people I observed have overcome poor design because they've become so accustomed to it - now they simply function as normal, and envelop the poor design in their routine.

I think the reality is that it's probably some of both:  Very few poor designs are unfathomable, but they could be somewhat challenging at first.  However, after the 100th time using a door or an ATM, very few functional humans are going to keep making the same mistake.  That being said, the reality is that if there were more, better design, it might simply make people's lives easier.  This might in turn lead to happier people, and then - who knows!

Visualizing Data: Jan Tschichold, Graphis, And Josef Müller-Brockmann

This week in Visualizing Data, we were asked to look into the work of three designers:  Jan Tschichold, Graphis, and Josef Müller-Brockmann.  All three are Swiss, and based mainly in the mid-20th century.  Moreover, the three also seem to have a unified aesthetic sense that is based firmly in a simple, rigid, and linear form.


While the three certainly create some interesting images, I'm not totally sure what it is that might distinguish Swiss Modernism from Modernism in general.  Moreover, I found these three in particular somewhat difficult to research, and their presence on the web is not quite as prevalent as that of their more famous colleagues.


That being said, it's clear that there is a unity amongst their work:  all three seem to lean towards geometric designs that employ simple fonts, geometric shapes, and stark colors.  What's more, all three are hailed as innovators in this area.  As such, it may be that their innovations and style seem more mundane in today's climate where many of their stylistic choices have become part of the mainstream.

Reactions To "Attractive Things Work Better" and "The Design Of Everyday Things"

This week in Physical Computing we were asked to read two pieces,  both by Don Norman.  The two pieces provided contrast to each other, in that the first, "The Design Of Everyday Things" is a chapter from Norman's original book focusing on usability, while the second is an essay attempting to amend some of his original conclusions and take aesthetics and emotion under consideration.


While both readings are interesting, by in large their conclusions both seem to exist extremely squarely in the realm of common sense.  Perhaps this is because the writings are close to two decades old, and it is certainly true that capable and aesthetically pleasing designs have become much more mainstream in the past ten years.


In the first piece, Norman makes a strong case for utilitarian designs, and the need to consider usability in deployment.  In the second piece, he responds to his own writing, by conceding that aesthetics can have an equal importance to usability when designing the optimal device.


That being said, many of Norman's examples seem trite, or perhaps from another age.  The tasks or devices that he cites as being challenges are simply things that most adults today know how to deal with.  The "blinking clock on the VCR" is a joke rooted in the 80's, and with good reason; it's simply no longer an issue.


Norman's writings may have had poignancy and relevance ten years ago, but today they serve to do something different.  They are illustrative of the advances that have been made in design in the mainstream, and just how prevalent they are.  Here's hoping the trend continues.

Some Thoughts On The Gotham Typeface

 This week in Visualizing Data, we were asked to consider the Gotham typeface and answer a few questions.  Here are my thoughts.

What is the “Gotham” typeface and what is its design inspired by? 
The Gotham typeface is a typeface commissioned by GQ magazine in an attempt to find something new, geometric, and masculine.  The typeface was inspired by the type on the buildings of "old New York", specifically the Port Authority terminal.


What type foundry drew and released Gotham? 
Gotham was drawn and released by the foundry Hoefler & Frere-Jones.

How much does this type foundry charge for the “Gotham Bundle” for a single computer? 
The "Gotham Bundle" sells for $69.00 on the H&F-J site.

How does that make you feel about fonts you’ve pilfered (if you have done so)? 
Frankly, I think that typefaces should be free when used outside of a business context.  The concept of "owning" a typeface even seems silly in a general sense, but is a necessity for foundries to exist.  That being said, as a student and/or creative artist the likelihood that I would ever personally pay for a font is precisely zero.

And briefly, who is Matthew Carter and what did he contribute to digital typography?
Carter is a typographer who began working in the 1960's as an apprentice.  He later (in 1981) went on to start one of the digital-specific foundries, Bitstream.  The significance of his contribution can be most easily summed up as being one of the pioneers of developing fonts that are tuned specifically to have a high degree of readability on a computer screen.

A Reaction To "Design Meets Disability"

This week's reading for Physical Computing explored the gap between the worlds of design and engineering, focusing specifically on the realm of devices made to assist the disabled.  The article contained a wide range of insights about this largely engineering based industry and its seeming disconnect from the world of design and aesthetics.  However, the portion that resonated with me most strikingly was the greater problem of separation of industries.  

In today's world, it seems that there are often very striking lines drawn between industries, resulting in the undesirable result of poor implementation, reduction and usability.  This is clearly exemplified in the article in relation to devices such as wheel chairs, prostheses, and hearing aids.  However, this is just one example of a gap that needs to be bridged.  Throughout day to day life, we see and use devices and interfaces that are hindered by the fact that they were engineered, and never designed.  

Thankfully, this is a problem that is slowly being addressed by many companies, and hopefully is the reason that many of us are at ITP:  To gain insight, learn from others' experiences, and create devices that encompass a wider array of perspectives and insights.

A Reaction To "The Bandwidth Of Consciousness"

In taking on this week's reading, "The Bandwidth Of Consciousness", I have to say that I'm a bit flummoxed on a number of counts.  Most notably, the fact that the author believes that the correlation between bit rates and human thought and bandwidth is even a reasonable one.  If I look at an extremely high resolution image (say, 100 MB), am I suddenly consuming data at that "bit rate"?  More imporantly, say the color depth of that image increases so that it's now 200 MB in size.  Am I now consuming even more data?  The prospect is silly, because the fact of the matter is that humans don't consume data as "bits", and an attempt to illustrate otherwise is a lost cause.  For another example, think of audio:  recorded audio has a bit rate that could potentially indicate "bandwidth", but then live audio has an infinite "bit rate".  If I listen to a live violin, is my bandwidth consumption infinite?  However, even more ridiculous is the concept as a whole:  the idea that you can take the input to the human nervous system and in any way quantify it is simply a principle that I don't see as viable.  While it's certainly interesting to see scientists attempting to pursue explanation in this manner, at the end of the day I can't really see that it yields very much value or insight to the reality of the situation.

Reactions To "As We May Think"

Finished up reading Vannevar Bush's "As We May Think" from the 1945 Atlantic, and have to say it was pretty entertaining.  Everything about the article is quaint, from the tone, to the ridiculously involved solutions to problems that have since ceased to even exist.  That being said, Bush's insight is remarkable, and he truly offers an amazing amount of foresight in regard to the problems that would be facing the world of information technology in the coming decades.

One interesting component of the article is how evident it is that it was written pre-transistor.  Almost all of Bush's solutions center around vacuum tubes and microfilm as the innovations of the day.  This leads them to be surprisingly involved, and often overly complex.  By contrast, the transistor enabled many of his innovations to be implemented in simple and beautiful ways.  It's yet another clear reminder of just how much the transistor transformed the climate of technology.

Hello World.

Welcome to the first in a horribly large number of posts in, around, and about, the life of a student at Tisch's Interactive Telecommunications Program.  The student in question is me, Patrick Proctor.  Here I'll be outlining my progress in the program, projects and coursework, and giving general perspective on anything that happens to suit my fancy. 

If you'd like to see what I'm up to outside of school you can check out my (painfully out of date) personal website, or the blog I run called Hippies Are Dead.  See you out there!