Talk:Data and information visualization

Directions for new material

I'd like to propose using some of the organizing principles from additional academic sources, such as the intro to Card et al.'s "Using Vision to Think", as well as using online course material for guidance to organization. (I'm thinking in particular of the recent visualization courses taught at Harvard, Berkeley, and Stanford). One might also be able to remove the dependency on the "smashing magazine" article, which while popular is not particularly authoritative in the field. Unless there are objections or other ideas in the next day or so, I'll start rewriting along these lines. --Infografica (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I indeed created the whole article, in which I have tried to accomplish a couple of things:

1. To outline the existence of datavisualisation, and
2. To show (some of) the difference between scientific visualization, data visualisation and information visualization (notice that this third article is still in a concept state on my user page)
3. To initiate a collection of images on WikiCommons on these areas, see [1], [2], [3], that gives a visual impression of those fields, and there differences.

Now I think the current article is particularly weak in the "Data visualization scope": the questions what subjects this new field studies? and what did have accomplished? I agree the reference of the "smashing magazine" article could be improved. But on the other hand if you start explaining Stuart Card's ideas on information visualization, you do interfer with my "masterplan".

Now you can do what ever you like. I will review any change made to these articles anyway, which could mean that I can copy items from one article to an other. On the other hand, you can do the same. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense! I will try to work within that plan.

A question: do you know how the Interactive visualization article fits into this? In some respects it seems redundant since data vis, sci vis, and info vis all could lay claim to being interactive. Actually, looking closely at the article, perhaps it has distinct material but should be renamed to "Interactivity in visualization". --Infografica (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I recreated the information visualization in Wikipedia main space, so you can work on both if you like. And next, I think the Interactive visualization is one of the many articles in Wikipedia about visualization that needs improvement. I don't think it fits in any scheme. I see it as a concurrent paradigm in the scientific community. And last but not least: Changing names should be proposed on the article itselve. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

a blog on DV

A Question: Am I able to suggest a site that focuses on data visualization, it is a blog on DV that I use reguarly to get a bigger persepective on applications of DV around the globe - If someone can confirm that a blog (as external resource/reference) site can be posted here - thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scareymonster1 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blog's are usually not acceptable as external links, but you could sometimes use them as a source. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply - Okay thank you Marcel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scareymonster1 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated Graphic for Model-Based Classification

Marcel, thank you for using our graphic to illustrate data visualization. We've made a larger version of this graphic for you to use. I'm not comfortable with uploading images to the Commons, so hopefully you can get this switched out for us. Thank you for this article! The updated file is at http://www.pnl.gov/cogInformatics/media/PNNL-MBCbig.jpg --Borgendorf (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have uploaded the new version, and I like to thank again you for making this image available. I have designed the series articles on Scientific visualization, Information visualization, Data visualization and Visual analytics last July 2008. I have tried carefully to select one image on top of each article that gives a particular representative representation of the field.

I think these first image have a very important other function in Wikipedia to be a kind of reminder of the field as well. Wikipedia articles are mainly witten for outsiders, and for them (and even for me before I (re)designed these articles) to keep them apart. These image help (me) to remain which field is in place. Now off course there is a lot more to it. These articles can and eventually will be improved, and for example the story behind your excellent illustration could be explained some more here.

Unfortunately not everybody in Wikipedia agrees on these kind of image, created by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, to be used on Wikipedia. For example retrieved from the same source as your image, this image is nominated for deletion (see also here). To avoid that all these excellent images are being removed from Wikipedia, it would help if I could get some more information about the actual copyright status of these images, and to get feed back whether or not for example a screenshot has been used. Is there a way I could contact you personally to ask some more detailled questions about this? This could realy help. Anyway thanks a lot, allready. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently, the series articles on Scientific visualization(Chinese version), Information visualization(Chinese version) and Data visualization(Chinese version) have been translated into Chinese and are under peer-reviewing on the zh.Wikipedia.org. Also, we want to translate the picture mentioned above into Chinese and keep it as the first image in the Chinese article on Data visualization. The translation request for the image has been submitted to PNNL.--Linforest (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very pleased to hear, and interested in the peer review result. I designed the three articles to make a clear difference in scientific -, information - and data-visualization. I wonder if you kept this difference, or not. From what I have seen from the Chinese articles you did added som more (excellent) illustrations. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently, they are under peer-reviewing on the Chinese peer review page. The following are the questions(by other Wikipedia users) related to the original(English) articles:

• Scientific visualization(Chinese version): There are two questions. (1) The dedicated paragraph for experts needs relevant references to show these people are real experts. (2) It needs more content about implementation and software tools such as LabVIEW and Matlab Simulink. (3) It needs to make an explicit distinguish between visulation from visualization. (visulation = visualization + simulation?)

• Information visualization(Chinese version): It needs more content to enrich those list-like parts(topics).

• Data visualization(Chinese version) : It needs to add more sysmetic content for explaing the whole process illustrated in the image mentioned above; a Chinese version of the image is wanted for those users on the zh.wikipedia.org.--Linforest (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The diagram is a nice visualization of the process from data mining to a "full picture". However it is not specific to data visualization but to data mining. Specifically this diagram illustrates using data in criminology, like mining splinters of information from dragnet investigation.

Here are examples for data visualization and even an interactive open source example.

I'm inclined to replace or at least complement the diagram by a specific example of data visualization, I'm sure one of the examples has appropriate copyright.SusanneOberhauser (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Susanne, have you taken a look at the information visualization article as well. The examples the ooyes.net blog presents as data-visualization are here in Wikipedia considered information visualization. I am not saying this is all correct. But I do think there is more to it here. -- Mdd (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Article section(s) removed

Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed one or more section of this article for now.

I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from various Wikipedia articles

This article or section appears to have been copied and pasted from various Wikipedia articles, possibly in violation of a copyright. This might have occurred in the period of June-Juli 2008, when I developed the article at User:Mdd/Data visualization

I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste registration

This article started as a draftversion on User:Mdd/Data visualization. This copy-paste registration there:

• In this edit text was copy/pasted there from the Data acquisition, Data analysis, Data governance and Data mining articles.
• In this edit text was copy/pasted from the Data management article.

Further copy/pasted in this article:

• In this edit text is copy/pasted from the Data modeling article.

-- Mdd (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotes about data visualisation

• "data visualization, the science of visual representation of “data”, defined as information which has been abstracted in some schematic form, including attributes or variables for the units of information. This topic could be taken to subsume the two main focii: statistical graphics, and thematic cartography".
  • Michael Friendly (2008). "Milestones in the history of thematic cartography, statistical graphics, and data visualization. p.2

• "data visualization began to rise from dormancy in the mid 1960s, spurred largely by three significant developments:
  • In the USA, John W. Tukey, in a landmark paper, “The Future of Data Analysis”, issued a call for the recognition of data analysis as a legitimate branch of statistics distinct from mathematical statistics...
  • In France, Jacques Bertin published the monumental Semiologie Graphique...
  • ... Computer processing of data had begun, and offered the possibility to construct old and new graphic forms by computer programs..."
  • Michael Friendly (2008). "Milestones in the history of thematic cartography, statistical graphics, and data visualization. p.32

• "Data visualization is the process of graphically depicting data in ways that are meaningful to you. When data are visualized effectively, the resulting graphical depictions can reveal patterns, trends, and distributions that might otherwise not be apparent from raw data alone."
  • US EPA (2002). Delivering timely water quality information to your community

-- Mdd (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Qlikview

I added Qlikview to the list, though MrOllie removed it. Could anyone check the allegation this would be a wrong edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevandeneijnden (talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Difference to "Information Visualization"

I think the difference to Information_Visualization should be made clear.
Further, I like their (first part of the) definition at the beginning more. Are they identical for both topics?

I think the two terms are synonymous; we could merge the articles. My interpretation is that data is converted into information via some type of analytical process (see the diagrams in Intelligence cycle). Visualization is likely part of that conversion process; data is visualized to help create information useful for decision making. Think of taking a table of data and graphing it to help tell a story (information). Therefore data visualization is a more precise term, in my view. I don't think the industry has stabilized in terms of how the terminology is used yet.Farcaster (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thought leaders: Hadley Wickham

Hadley made ggplot, implementation of ideas from some book I don't care now to find. How that makes him a thought leader of Data Visualization?! 2001:4530:2:406:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFF1 (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please leave out the nonsense

"Data visualization is viewed by many disciplines as a modern equivalent of visual communication."

Sorry, this does not pass the smell test. This is an encyclopedia, not a poetry journal. Please limit yourself to verifiable facts. Thanks.2600:1700:E1C0:F340:84BB:F342:C2E:B9D9 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

consensus to merge Data visualization and Information visualization into Data and information visualization. The supporters have valid arguments for merging the articles (redundancy, similarity of method and the possibility the possibility to contextualise distinctions in a section of the combined article), and they command a 3:1 majority. Felix QW (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

---

There's a lot of overlap between Data visualization and Information visualization, so I propose merging the two into Data and information visualization. fgnievinski (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

See also related sections #Difference to "Information Visualization" and #Directions for new material above. fgnievinski (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Then there's also Infographics, which is 1/3 data visualization. fgnievinski (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Though data and information have distinct definitions (explanation), both data and information are visualized in much the same way. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Data visualization and Information visualization are two interconnected fields, and there are written tons of articles and books on both subjects separately. There are only a handful of articles on the subject of Data and information visualization. I would appreciate a thorough representation on the general principles of visualization, and a more precise representation of the separate fields. -- Mdd (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore for the record, I appreciate the recent effort @Fgnievinski: is taking to get a better organization of the representation of visualization and its separate fields. I initially expanded both articles in 2008, which were quite basic and quite distinguished, see for example:

• Data visualization, first extended version of the 11:24, 11 August 2008
• Information visualization, extended version of 21:33, 5 October 2009

Over the past twelve years both articles evolved towards another and have become almost interchangeable. Instead of piling the both up under a nameless title "Data and information visualization" I would appreciate the effort to go back to the basics, in line with the current state of the art, and organization of the academia, schools, books, societies, events, etc. -- Mdd (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That could be best addressed in the proposed merger with a section titled "Data visualization vs. information visualization"; I fail to see any meaningful distinction, though. fgnievinski (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Since there is such overlap between the two topics, I agree with User:Fgnievinski's suggestion of a "DV vs. IV" section. This merger is analogous to the recent merger of close-but-distinct Global warming and Climate change concepts into the single article, Climate change. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topics don't have to be the same to warrant merge, there just needs to be a large overlap. ~Kvng (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Implementing the merger

@Fgnievinski, RCraig09, Mdd, and Kvng: Pinging the participants of the merger debate for assistance in implementing the merger. Since the exact relationship between the subjects of the two prior articles was in dispute, I don't feel comfortable in implementing the merger alone. Felix QW (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Felix QW: I went ahead and finished the merger; there are some rough edges left to smooth. fgnievinski (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Excel .xlsx spreadsheets that automatically generate XML code for .SVG charts/graphs

Useful tools I've developed for Wikimedia/Wikipedia:

General concept above; examples below.

Warming stripes
(five examples compared)

Warming stripes bar chart

Bar chart (vertical)

Pie chart

Line charts

Scatterplot

I've uploaded .xlsx (Microsoft Excel) spreadsheets that automatically generate XML code for charts in SVG format.

You simply paste or enter your data into the spreadsheet, and specify image dimensions, number of grid lines, font sizes, etc. The spreadsheet instantly and automatically generates a column of XML code that you simply copy and paste into a text editor and save as an ".svg" file. The spreadsheets produce lean SVG code, avoiding the "extra stuff" that Inkscape inserts. They should save you time in creating SVG charts.

Feedback and suggestions on my talk page are welcome. RCraig09 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Click HOW TO for detailed explanation.

Click HERE (else HERE) to download the spreadsheets.

Example SVG files: Category:SVG diagrams created with spreadsheet.

1. Warming stripes — Accepts a single dataset and converts to SVG code portraying Ed Hawkins' warming stripes graphics. User chooses vertical or horizontal stripes; normal or reverse data ordering; or from a variety of geometric shapes (updated 17 May 2023). . . . . Click here to see examples of warming stripes embedded in different shapes.
2. Warming stripes bar chart — Accepts a single dataset and creates a conventional bar chart whose individual bars/columns are coloured according to Dr. Hawkins' warming stripes colour scheme. Alternate option: choose one colour for ascending bars and another colour for descending bars. (updated 28 August 2023)
3. Line charts — Accepts up to six datasets. (updated 30 August 2023)
4. Vertical bar charts (column charts) — Accepts up to six datasets. Toggle between clustered and stacked charts; user can adjust "Yfloor"—the Y level (usually=0) from which columns rise or fall; user chooses to keep or ignore negative input values. (updated 27 August 2023)
5. Horizontal bar charts — Accepts up to six datasets. Toggle between clustered and stacked charts; user can adjust "Yfloor"—the value (usually=0) from which bars extend; user chooses to keep or ignore negative input values. (updated 27 August 2023)
6. Scatter plots — Accepts up to five datasets. (updated 28 August 2023)
7. Pie charts — Accepts a single dataset of up to 36 items. (updated 17 May 2023)
8. Variable-width bar charts — Accepts up to six datasets; is like "Vertical bar charts", above, but user can choose different widths for different bars. (updated 27 August 2023)

List of online conferences

• On Data And Design : https://www.youtube.com/c/ondataanddesign
• Eyeo Festival : https://www.youtube.com/user/EyeoFestival
• DataViz Lisboa : https://www.youtube.com/c/DataVisLisboa
• any other suggestions? lets put them here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.159.81.96 (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Techniques section

When I view the Techniques section, the layout makes me wonder if improvements could be made. Items are vertically centered, and the right-most column entry is often much larger than the other columns' entries; this results in what looks like misalignment, with tons of whitespace. I think it would be better to not use a table format here. Instead, we could use a list structure, with one entry for each plot type, and consistent sub-fields/lists under each example plot for the Visual Dimensions, etc. I think this would be much more compact and readable. Should I make this change, or do others' browsers render this table differently/acceptably? Let me know what you think! Cheers, Doctormatt (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the present table structure is acceptable, as I don't mind white space and I don't see "misaligned and jumbly rows" on my desktop. Can you point us toward another Wikipedia article that uses the list structure that you mention, so we can better visualize^{pun intended} the final product you propose? I'd hate to see you waste time and effort if it doesn't meet consensus afterwards. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for talking with me. If nobody besides me thinks there are improvements to be made on this table, I'll just try to improve things somewhere else. Let's see if anybody else shares an opinion here about this. Cheers! Doctormatt (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Artisticrush (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Artisticrush (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Railroad line graphs

One type of visualization not mentioned is a railroad traffic line graph. For me, this rivals Minard's 1869 Napoleon graphic. Here's an overview: https://sandrarendgen.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/data-trails-from-paris-with-love/ BMJ-pdx (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@BMJ-pdx: I agree that it's a useful graphic, though it only indicates distance versus time, repeatedly—not as complex and creative as Minard's Napoleon graphic. It might be suited for inclusion here if one could find a visually demonstrative example (see examples in Public transport timetable). Results of my quick google search are here. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

See also the Wikimedia Commons category: Graphic timetables. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)