Critiquing Interactive Vs. Static


Questions & Thoughts About Critiquing Peter Hall’s Data Visualizations Categories: Artistic, Journalistic, and Scientific.


I revisited Peter Hall’s recorded presentation, recalling that toward the midway point of his talk, he mentions, “Each of these categorizations is much too siloed–no surprise there, really, given the structures of universities…” Hall concludes that each category has its own language and that the process of creating data visualizations, is as much about the process of mining the data as it is about knowing how to interpret the data and to present it.

What I gleaned from Hall’s taxonomy is that it’s a balanced approach when determining characteristics of a visualization, in order to formulate a critique. We can discern how a visualization presents its data, either as a means: to discover a new scientific frontier; to examine existing complex data; to communicate to the public; or to challenge rhetoric. I think that many visualizations can easily crossover into more than one category, or else include instances of more than one category. I don’t believe that Hall’s intent wasn’t to force data visualizations into categories, but to provide a foundation for evaluating data visualizations.

One topic that I believe Hall touches on, but does not explore in depth, is the political aspect of presenting data. Data can be primarily political or can have instances of political influence, such as The Emerging Issues Commons–a collection of interactive presentations in various formats (below). Therefore, I think that a Political category needs to be taken into account with how the data is presented.

An 82-foot sculpture displaying real-time information.

The Pulse – An 82-foot sculpture displaying real-time information. Second Story.

Interactive Digital Wall

Web Commons — A 16-Foot Interactive Digital Wall. Second Story.

Interactive Wall Kiosk

Connections Experience — Interactive Wall Kiosk. Second Story.

I arrive at data visualization with some experience, and it remains an intriguing and somewhat intimidating venture. I’ve also been curious about differentiating between static and interactive visualizations, and how exactly Hall’s taxonomy can be applied to an interactive visualization. For example, an interactive visualization can easily shift its approach and purpose toward a scientific, journalistic or an artistic presentation, and contain instances of multiple categories. How then, do I differentiate critiquing static visualizations between interactive or animated visualizations? Would I need to approach an interactive visualization by critiquing static still images in its sequence, or would that wholly suffice, since I would be eliminating the interactive component?


Questions & Thoughts About Critiquing Peter Hall’s Data Visualizations Categories: Artistic, Journalistic, and Scientific


I revisited Peter Hall’s recorded presentation, recalling that toward the midway point of his talk, he mentions, “Each of these categorizations is much too siloed–no surprise there, really, given the structures of universities…” Hall concludes that each category has its own language and that the process of creating data visualizations, is as much about the process of mining the data as it is about knowing how to interpret the data and to present it.

What I gleaned from Hall’s taxonomy is that it’s a balanced approach when determining characteristics of a visualization, in order to formulate a critique. We can discern how a visualization presents its data, either as a means: to discover a new scientific frontier; to examine existing complex data; to communicate to the public; or to challenge rhetoric. I think that many visualizations can easily crossover into more than one category, or else include instances of more than one category. I don’t believe that Hall’s intent wasn’t to force data visualizations into categories, but to provide a foundation for evaluating data visualizations.

One topic that I believe Hall touches on, but does not explore in depth, is the political aspect of presenting data. Data can be primarily political or can have instances of political influence, such as The Emerging Issues Commons–a collection of interactive presentations in various formats (below). Therefore, I think that a Political category needs to be taken into account with how the data is presented.

An 82-foot sculpture displaying real-time information.

The Pulse – An 82-foot sculpture displaying real-time information. Second Story.

Interactive Digital Wall

Web Commons — A 16-Foot Interactive Digital Wall. Second Story.

Interactive Wall Kiosk

Connections Experience — Interactive Wall Kiosk. Second Story.

I arrive at data visualization with some experience, and it remains an intriguing and somewhat intimidating venture. I’ve also been curious about differentiating between static and interactive visualizations, and how exactly Hall’s taxonomy can be applied to an interactive visualization. For example, an interactive visualization can easily shift its approach and purpose toward a scientific, journalistic or an artistic presentation, and contain instances of multiple categories. How then, do I differentiate critiquing static visualizations between interactive or animated visualizations? Would I need to approach an interactive visualization by critiquing static still images in its sequence, or would that wholly suffice, since I would be eliminating the interactive component?


Questions & Thoughts About Critiquing Peter Hall’s Data Visualizations Categories: Artistic, Journalistic, and Scientific


I revisited Peter Hall’s recorded presentation, recalling that toward the midway point of his talk, he mentions, “Each of these categorizations is much too siloed–no surprise there, really, given the structures of universities…” Hall concludes that each category has its own language and that the process of creating data visualizations, is as much about the process of mining the data as it is about knowing how to interpret the data and to present it.

What I gleaned from Hall’s taxonomy is that it’s a balanced approach when determining characteristics of a visualization, in order to formulate a critique. We can discern how a visualization presents its data, either as a means: to discover a new scientific frontier; to examine existing complex data; to communicate to the public; or to challenge rhetoric. I think that many visualizations can easily crossover into more than one category, or else include instances of more than one category. I don’t believe that Hall’s intent wasn’t to force data visualizations into categories, but to provide a foundation for evaluating data visualizations.

One topic that I believe Hall touches on, but does not explore in depth, is the political aspect of presenting data. Data can be primarily political or can have instances of political influence, such as The Emerging Issues Commons–a collection of interactive presentations in various formats (below). Therefore, I think that a Political category needs to be taken into account with how the data is presented.

An 82-foot sculpture displaying real-time information.

The Pulse – An 82-foot sculpture displaying real-time information. Second Story.

Interactive Digital Wall

Web Commons — A 16-Foot Interactive Digital Wall. Second Story.

Interactive Wall Kiosk

Connections Experience — Interactive Wall Kiosk. Second Story.

I arrive at data visualization with some experience, and it remains an intriguing and somewhat intimidating venture. I’ve also been curious about differentiating between static and interactive visualizations, and how exactly Hall’s taxonomy can be applied to an interactive visualization. For example, an interactive visualization can easily shift its approach and purpose toward a scientific, journalistic or an artistic presentation, and contain instances of multiple categories. How then, do I differentiate critiquing static visualizations between interactive or animated visualizations? Would I need to approach an interactive visualization by critiquing static still images in its sequence, or would that wholly suffice, since I would be eliminating the interactive component?


Questions & Thoughts About Critiquing Peter Hall’s Data Visualizations Categories: Artistic, Journalistic, and Scientific


I revisited Peter Hall’s recorded presentation, recalling that toward the midway point of his talk, he mentions, “Each of these categorizations is much too siloed–no surprise there, really, given the structures of universities…” Hall concludes that each category has its own language and that the process of creating data visualizations, is as much about the process of mining the data as it is about knowing how to interpret the data and to present it.

What I gleaned from Hall’s taxonomy is that it’s a balanced approach when determining characteristics of a visualization, in order to formulate a critique. We can discern how a visualization presents its data, either as a means: to discover a new scientific frontier; to examine existing complex data; to communicate to the public; or to challenge rhetoric. I think that many visualizations can easily crossover into more than one category, or else include instances of more than one category. I don’t believe that Hall’s intent wasn’t to force data visualizations into categories, but to provide a foundation for evaluating data visualizations.

One topic that I believe Hall touches on, but does not explore in depth, is the political aspect of presenting data. Data can be primarily political or can have instances of political influence, such as The Emerging Issues Commons–a collection of interactive presentations in various formats (below). Therefore, I think that a Political category needs to be taken into account with how the data is presented.

An 82-foot sculpture displaying real-time information.

The Pulse – An 82-foot sculpture displaying real-time information. Second Story.

Interactive Digital Wall

Web Commons — A 16-Foot Interactive Digital Wall. Second Story.

Interactive Wall Kiosk

Connections Experience — Interactive Wall Kiosk. Second Story.

I arrive at data visualization with some experience, and it remains an intriguing and somewhat intimidating venture. I’ve also been curious about differentiating between static and interactive visualizations, and how exactly Hall’s taxonomy can be applied to an interactive visualization. For example, an interactive visualization can easily shift its approach and purpose toward a scientific, journalistic or an artistic presentation, and contain instances of multiple categories. How then, do I differentiate critiquing static visualizations between interactive or animated visualizations? Would I need to approach an interactive visualization by critiquing static still images in its sequence, or would that wholly suffice, since I would be eliminating the interactive component?


Questions & Thoughts About Critiquing Peter Hall’s Data Visualizations Categories: Artistic, Journalistic, and Scientific


I revisited Peter Hall’s recorded presentation, recalling that toward the midway point of his talk, he mentions, “Each of these categorizations is much too siloed–no surprise there, really, given the structures of universities…” Hall concludes that each category has its own language and that the process of creating data visualizations, is as much about the process of mining the data as it is about knowing how to interpret the data and to present it.

What I gleaned from Hall’s taxonomy is that it’s a balanced approach when determining characteristics of a visualization, in order to formulate a critique. We can discern how a visualization presents its data, either as a means: to discover a new scientific frontier; to examine existing complex data; to communicate to the public; or to challenge rhetoric. I think that many visualizations can easily crossover into more than one category, or else include instances of more than one category. I don’t believe that Hall’s intent wasn’t to force data visualizations into categories, but to provide a foundation for evaluating data visualizations.

One topic that I believe Hall touches on, but does not explore in depth, is the political aspect of presenting data. Data can be primarily political or can have instances of political influence, such as The Emerging Issues Commons–a collection of interactive presentations in various formats (below). Therefore, I think that a Political category needs to be taken into account with how the data is presented.

An 82-foot sculpture displaying real-time information.

The Pulse – An 82-foot sculpture displaying real-time information. Second Story.

Interactive Digital Wall

Web Commons — A 16-Foot Interactive Digital Wall. Second Story.

Interactive Wall Kiosk

Connections Experience — Interactive Wall Kiosk. Second Story.

I arrive at data visualization with some experience, and it remains an intriguing and somewhat intimidating venture. I’ve also been curious about differentiating between static and interactive visualizations, and how exactly Hall’s taxonomy can be applied to an interactive visualization. For example, an interactive visualization can easily shift its approach and purpose toward a scientific, journalistic or an artistic presentation, and contain instances of multiple categories. How then, do I differentiate critiquing static visualizations between interactive or animated visualizations? Would I need to approach an interactive visualization by critiquing static still images in its sequence, or would that wholly suffice, since I would be eliminating the interactive component?


-- Download Critiquing Interactive Vs. Static as PDF --