overload'd

I've been finding heaps of examples of dataviz. I've felt inspired by some, encouraged to create a visualisation on something I'm interested in... and I get an idea, but the other half of my brain asks the unfairly negative question 'How?'. And that's when I get stumped. I have had a few ideas, but I feel as though I'm not talented enough to do them. The most exciting dataviz examples seem complicated when I consider how they're actually made. I've never used Flash, so that rules out those examples, and I'm determined to do it via computer instead of handmade.

Ever since we were shown an example of a previous student's geo narrative, I've felt much more inspired to do that one - any chance to be arty. (I feel like dataviz might be too mathematical for my tiny illogical brain.) So I've been trying to think of a geo narrative that would make mine original, not a blatant copy of this student's, and a way that also reflects something about the internetscape nowadays.

Still racking my brains. I'm hoping for a perfect idea that will be fictional but highlight something important. Contextual, y'know.

I know what dataviz is supposed to be, but I have no idea how I could actually do it in a cool nifty way. Still working that part out.

Datavizual

I guess I'll take any opportunity to say 'dataviz'. Seriously, it'd have to be the coolest shortening of a big word ever. Dataviz. Dataviz. I can't help it.

The key defining points of datavisualisation, as I established from the lecture, would have to be:

- a visual representation of abstract information
- an exploitation of the ability of human beings to see things
- having the purpose to translate abstract, numerical and so on facts or statistics into something visual
- quantity translated into scale, colour, shape, position, movement, and so on.

These four things, I think, basically sum up datavisualisation. At first I thought "Oh, okay, you mean like putting stuff into a graph so we can see it and the trends and shiz". But as Michael showed a few more examples, I realised I've come across examples of datavisualisation many times before. The Oakland police department was a classic example, using a map to visually represent the location of various crimes throughout the city, but on top of this representing the crimes committed by use of colour-coded dots and abbreviations.

The map showed a simple way to display multiple pieces of data simultaneously. If this data was in its raw form, it would be a massive list. But at a glance all of the information needed is there, and is easy to digest.

This, I think, is something that is really important to dataviz. It makes it all the more nifty, because you can get much more with half the work. Lovely.

The dataviz delicious links were really interesting. It gave me some inspiration as to not only the different ways I could create a datavisualisation in a way that isn't a graph, but different subjects.

Take the Charting the Beatles concept, for example. I was interested because it is something I love (Les Beatles). I was initially worried that I would have to make something more informative and formal for Production Project B, because I couldn't think of any way I could think of something cool to dataviz about. The Beatles examples Michael Deal puts forward are intriguing, not only because the way it incorporates one of my favourite bands, but because one of the graphs attempt to mathematically represent something quite un-mathematical.

The specific example I am talking about is the Authorship and Collaboration graph that was published in William J Dowdling's book Beatlesongs. In this graph, which you can see for yourself HERE, Dowdling charts the degree of collaboration on all Beatles songs, with the time they were released ordered horizontally. What is unusual is that on songs Lennon and McCartney co-wrote, they are not simply distinguished as 50/50 input; the graph represents more uneven collaboration levels such as 70-30, 80-20 and so on.

I guess this graph highlights the possibility for data representation - it is perfect to notice and reveal trends and correlations, such as how towards the end of their career the collaboration between the four members, particularly Lennon and McCartney, is much less, and George Harrison's songwriting took a definite increase. I am just interested to know how Dowdling got his data exactly, as to me, it is hard to put a percentage on artistic collaboration. Do they do this numerically by the number of words or chords one of the members put in? Or did he ask the members or producer(s) of the respective songs for their estimates as to how the credit should be distributed?

At this stage, I'm still trying to come up with an idea for my Project B datavisualisation that will carry me through and be specific enough not to have necessarily been done before. The Beatles example has shown what kind of spin I can take on traditional statistic representations.

I would be interested in something a little bit beyond a simple chart or graph. While although I've never used Flash before, perhaps I could come up with an animation or video such as this example. Seeing a Hashtag Spread represented its findings quite niftily, especially seen in the second video, where they used people's Twitter icons lighting up to represent how the tag spread. It would be cool to do something like this.

... and I guess I'll have to make sure I keep these five things in mind:

- exploration
- layering
- interactivity
- availability of data
- comparison of datasets

Especially the interactivity one. Nobody wants something they're just forced to stare at.

Also, I'm pretty devo'd that we don't get any more lectures for this subject. It's such a relevant subject and was pretty damn epic. So thanks Michael for all your hard work making the internet more than just Facebook, I found a picture for you as a present should you ever read this.

Multiplicity & Beyond

Crowdsourcing: relying on a group of people for information. For all you hear from fer srs n00bs like my mum about the internet being a "terrible resource, get off Google and go read your goddamned textbook" (I don't know if she's actually ever said that word for word, but it was probably similar), the concept of crowdsourcing is still really important, and damn useful. It just depends on the information you are trying to gain for yourself.

In my last post, I mentioned Wikipedia being, in a way, the most reliable source out there. And it is - but in a way. Obviously you are going to come across faults in your information, like that time I read the Wiki article on Vegetarianism, and was scanning through the Background paragraph when all of a sudden "Hi my name is Cheri please become a vegetarian you will love yourself forever!!!" hit me like a giant steak-sized portion of tofu. But along with this, you are going to get a lot of specific, lesser-known facts about a topic because of the large group of people's diversity. So it's a bit of a balancing act.

But crowdsourcing and multiplicity are not only relatable to factual information, which is what my mum would always diss in relation to English literature assignments. In her eyes, a published book is much more reliable. And it probably is, it just depends on what type of reliability you are looking for. 'Information' does not simply mean the stuff you need for assignments. It can be data and all other things wise.

I find 99Designs a thoroughly interesting example. It is a cool concept! And it practises crowdsourcing, relying on a group of people for information - in this instance, a product. You put your request out there, and a group of people are to respond. You are relying on a group of people's intelligence or knowledge. ( But Twitter backgrounds for US$149 seems a bit extreme, in my humble opinion.)

Being part of 'the flock' in the internet community that provides that service is not something to be ignored. While although much is said of the service you can get in requesting, it is important that things are held on the internet world by people continuing to respond to other people's needs. This will be when certain websites relying on crowdsourcing will collapse, and the requests will outnumber the received products.

Crowdsourcing is clearly not something that has only come to fruition with the internet; it's just that it is so close to the internet's heart, especially with Web 2.0 and the endless prevalence of connectivity. I found an epic yet simple example of crowdsourcing in real life by reading fellow tutorial/classmate Susan's blogpost. Driving in a pack of cars is a classic example. (Go read that post now. Here is my example of page ranking and connectivity, fyi)

On another note, in class today we were asked to come up with and idea for our own website that puts collective intelligence into practice. The exercise mentioned gathering and distributing, and making access to information - the foundation of crowdsourcing - so we came up with the online submissions of the Australian census, and a place where the results of such a thing were publicly accessible. If it were online, it would be easier to gather, compile and distribute the information. I don't think our initial idea works exactly true to the collective intelligence ideal, but the information it makes available is very valuable. It is a form of information put together by a group of people; it just so happens that our information is more in the way of statistics.

Also, Wikipedia races were pretty much the highlight of my senior years at high school. I guess that's when collective intelligence, multiplicity and crowdsourcing were well and truly an established part of the internets.

PS love you mum :D

web 2.0 ftw

Yay for my laptop getting a virus. I wonder if that's Web 2.0's fault.

Web 2.0, I think, is so interesting. It is also extremely relevant when I think about most of the websites I use/are familiar with today in particular. This week's topic made a lot of sense, and probably because of its epic relevance.

An interesting point made was when Michael mentioned how Wikipedia, in a sense, is the most accurate encyclopaedia out there. And this is very true. When you think about it, the people who collaborate your ordinary encyclopaedia are a very narrow group of people. You do not have that sheer range or diverse group of people, who all hold specific knowledge about very specific things; instead you have a group of academics with money to make physical copies of their works. You may have a substantially large group of academics, but you don't have the entire world like Wikipedia does.

This reminds me of things we had to consider in relation to scientific collaboration when I did chemistry at high school. We had to explore the benefits of collaboration - I had the points memorised in my head for my NSW HSC, it would be a serious 'fml' moment if I could still remember them. And I think it is very significant in this context.

Web 2.0 - a collaboration. It is, essentially, a popularity contest, when you think about it. Such as the page ranking system. Or the Touching the Void versus Into Thin Air debacle. People of all kinds with all different tastes and values and cultures and morals are deciding the future of the internet. They are also deciding the survival of websites, because without its users Facebook wouldn't exist. Same going for eBay, craigslist, and so on. These websites exist because of the connectivity they provide between users.

"The more people that use a service, the more useful and valuable that service becomes." This is, obviously, very true for the websites I just mentioned; but it is also true of communities and the like I am a part of on the internet. Take my membership on a creative writing community website, for example. It is a place where you as a user benefit from being able to post your pieces of work and get feedback. And, as a user, you can also browse the different genres available if you feel like a good read. Even hot slash. (Isn't that nice?) The more users there are, the more stories there are to choose from, with the most ridiculous and obscure fanfiction now available. The website simply serves as a place for people to congregate and upload stories.

So what can I say? Web 2.0 ftw!!!!!!!!1111~!!~!