It feels like we're all suffering from information overload or data glut. And the good news is there might be an easy solution to that, and that's using our eyes more. So, visualizing information, so that we can see the patterns and connections that matter and then designing that information so it makes more sense, or it tells a story, or allows us to focus only on the information that's important. Failing that, visualized information can just look really cool.
Čini se da smo svi izloženi bombardovanju podacima i da smo preopterećeni informacijama. Dobro je što tome svemu možda i možemo lako doskočiti tako što ćemo se više oslanjati na svoj vid. Dakle, vizualizacijom podataka, možemo da vidimo sheme i veze koje su od značaja, da preoblikujemo informacije tako da imaju više smisla ili da ispričamo neku priču ili da se jednostavno usredsredimo samo na informacije koje su nam važne. Osim toga, vizualizivane informacije ponekad izgledaju veoma lepo.
So, let's see. This is the $Billion Dollar o-Gram, and this image arose out of frustration I had with the reporting of billion-dollar amounts in the press. That is, they're meaningless without context: 500 billion for this pipeline, 20 billion for this war. It doesn't make any sense, so the only way to understand it is visually and relatively. So I scraped a load of reported figures from various news outlets and then scaled the boxes according to those amounts. And the colors here represent the motivation behind the money. So purple is "fighting," and red is "giving money away," and green is "profiteering." And what you can see straight away is you start to have a different relationship to the numbers. You can literally see them. But more importantly, you start to see patterns and connections between numbers that would otherwise be scattered across multiple news reports.
Hajde da pogledamo. Ovo je Billion Dollar Gram (dijagram milijardu dolara) i ta je slika nastala kao posledica frustracije koju sam osećao kad bih u štampi pisao o iznosima od milijardu dolara. Ti podaci su besmisleni ako nisu u kontekstu. 500 milijardi za ovaj cevovod. 20 milijardi za onaj rat. Nema nikakvog smisla, i jedini način da išta razumete jeste da se podatak prikaže vizuelno i u odnosu na nešto. I tako sam skupio gomilu brojki o kojima se izveštava iz različitih novinskih agencija i prikazao ih pravougaonicima čija veličina odgovara tim iznosima. Boje ovde predstavljaju motivaciju koja stoji iza novca. Ljubičasta predstavlja ratovanje, a crvena doniranje novca, dok je zelena gomilanje zarade. I odmah se može videti da postoji drugačiji odnos prema brojevima. Bukvalno ih vidite. Ali, što je još važnije, počinjete da uviđate sheme i veze među brojevima koje bi inače ostale nezapažene u moru novinskih izveštaja.
Let me point out some that I really like. This is OPEC's revenue, this green box here -- 780 billion a year. And this little pixel in the corner -- three billion -- that's their climate change fund. Americans, incredibly generous people -- over 300 billion a year, donated to charity every year, compared with the amount of foreign aid given by the top 17 industrialized nations at 120 billion. Then of course, the Iraq War, predicted to cost just 60 billion back in 2003. And it mushroomed slightly. Afghanistan and Iraq mushroomed now to 3,000 billion. So now it's great because now we have this texture, and we can add numbers to it as well. So we could say, well, a new figure comes out ... let's see African debt. How much of this diagram do you think might be taken up by the debt that Africa owes to the West? Let's take a look. So there it is: 227 billion is what Africa owes. And the recent financial crisis, how much of this diagram might that figure take up? What has that cost the world? Let's take a look at that. Dooosh -- Which I think is the appropriate sound effect for that much money: 11,900 billion. So, by visualizing this information, we turned it into a landscape that you can explore with your eyes, a kind of map really, a sort of information map. And when you're lost in information, an information map is kind of useful.
Pokazaću vam neke koje mi se veoma dopadaju. Ovo je prihod OPEKa, ovaj zeleni pravougaonik - 780 milijardi godišnje. A ovaj mali piksel u uglu - tri milijarde - to je njihov fond za borbu protiv klimatskih promena. Amerikanci, neverovatno darežljivi ljudi - doniraju u dobrotvorne svrhe preko 300 milijardi godišnje, u poređenju sa iznosom inostrane pomoći koja dolazi od 17 najrazvijenijih zemalja što iznosi 120 milijardi. A onda, naravno, rat u Iraku, za koji su predviđali da će da košta 60 milijardi 2003. godine. Malčice je premašio očekivanja. Avganistan je narastao do 3000 milijardi danas. Sada je to izvanredno jer sada imamo teksturu, i možemo joj dodavati brojeve. Mogli bismo reći, na primer, nova brojka se pomalja ... da pogledamo afrički dug. Koju površinu ovog dijagrama mislite da zauzima dugovanje Afrike prema zapadu? Hajde da pogledamo. Evo ga. 227 milijardi duguje Afrika. A ova poslednja finansijska kriza - šta mislite koliko ovog dijagrama može zauzeti ta cifra? Koliko je to koštalo ceo svet? Hajde da to pogledamo. Plus! Mislim da je to odgovarajući zvučni efekat za tu količinu novca. 11900 milijardi. Pretvaranjem informacije u sliku, pretvorili smo je u pejzaž koji možete istraživati gledajući ga, to postaje neka vrsta mape, mapa informacija. A kada se ne snalazite u informacijama, mapa informacija je nekako korisna.
So I want to show you another landscape now. We need to imagine what a landscape of the world's fears might look like. Let's take a look. This is Mountains Out of Molehills, a timeline of global media panic. (Laughter) So, I'll label this for you in a second. But the height here, I want to point out, is the intensity of certain fears as reported in the media. Let me point them out. So this, swine flu -- pink. Bird flu. SARS -- brownish here. Remember that one? The millennium bug, terrible disaster. These little green peaks are asteroid collisions. (Laughter) And in summer, here, killer wasps.
Prikazaću vam još jedan pejzaž. Treba da zamislimo kakav je to pejzaž koji bi oslikavao strahove čovečanstva. Pogledajmo. Ovo su planine i brežuljci vremenska osa globalne panike. (smeh) Obeležiću vam ovo začas. Ali ovo uzvišenje, naročito hoću da istaknem, jeste intenzitet određenih strahova, kako o njima izveštavaju mediji. Pokazaću vam. Ovo - svinjski grip - ružičasto. Ptičiji grip. SARS - braonkasto, ovde. Sećate li se toga? Milenijumska buba - užasna katastrofa. ovi mali zeleni vrhovi predstavljaju sudare asteroida. (smeh) A u leto, ovde, pčele ubice.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
So these are what our fears look like over time in our media. But what I love -- and I'm a journalist -- and what I love is finding hidden patterns; I love being a data detective. And there's a very interesting and odd pattern hidden in this data that you can only see when you visualize it. Let me highlight it for you. See this line, this is a landscape for violent video games. As you can see, there's a kind of odd, regular pattern in the data, twin peaks every year. If we look closer, we see those peaks occur at the same month every year. Why? Well, November, Christmas video games come out, and there may well be an upsurge in the concern about their content. But April isn't a particularly massive month for video games. Why April? Well, in April 1999 was the Columbine shooting, and since then, that fear has been remembered by the media and echoes through the group mind gradually through the year. You have retrospectives, anniversaries, court cases, even copy-cat shootings, all pushing that fear into the agenda. And there's another pattern here as well. Can you spot it? See that gap there? There's a gap, and it affects all the other stories. Why is there a gap there? You see where it starts? September 2001, when we had something very real to be scared about.
Ovako izgledaju naši strahovi u medijima u određenom vremenskom periodu. Ali ono što mi se posebno dopada - a ja sam novinar - i naročito uživam u tome da pronalazim skrivene sheme; volim da budem detektiv za podatke. U ovim se podacima krije naročito neobična i zanimljiva shema koju možete primetiti samo ako je vizualizujete. Obeležiću je. Pogledajte ovu liniju. Ovo je model koji predstavlja nasilne video igre. Kao što vidite, postoji naročito, pravilno ponavljanje u podacima vršne vrednosti dva puta godišnje Ako pogledamo detaljnije, videćemo da se vršne vrednosti postižu istog meseca svake godine. Zašto? Pa, u novembru se puštaju u prodaju Božićne video igre, i moguće je da zabrinutost raste zbog njihovog sadržaja. Ali april nije mesec naročito opterećen video igrama Zbog čega april? Pa, u aprilu 1999. dogodila se pucnjava u Kolombajnu. i otada, toga se straha podsećamo preko medija i on odzvanja našom kolektivnom svešću preko godine. Imate retrospektive, godišnjice, sudske procese, čak i druge pucnjave po uzoru na ovu što sve taj strah stavlja u prvi plan. A postoji još jedna shema u tome. Da li je uočavate? Vidite ovaj razmak? Tu postoji nepravilnost koja utiče na sve druge priče. Zašto ovde imamo razmak? Vidite li kada počinje? Septembar 2001, kada se pojavilo nešto veoma stvarno čega se trebalo plašiti.
So, I've been working as a data journalist for about a year, and I keep hearing a phrase all the time, which is this: "Data is the new oil." Data is the kind of ubiquitous resource that we can shape to provide new innovations and new insights, and it's all around us, and it can be mined very easily. It's not a particularly great metaphor in these times, especially if you live around the Gulf of Mexico, but I would, perhaps, adapt this metaphor slightly, and I would say that data is the new soil. Because for me, it feels like a fertile, creative medium. Over the years, online, we've laid down a huge amount of information and data, and we irrigate it with networks and connectivity, and it's been worked and tilled by unpaid workers and governments. And, all right, I'm kind of milking the metaphor a little bit. But it's a really fertile medium, and it feels like visualizations, infographics, data visualizations, they feel like flowers blooming from this medium. But if you look at it directly, it's just a lot of numbers and disconnected facts. But if you start working with it and playing with it in a certain way, interesting things can appear and different patterns can be revealed.
Kao novinar sam istraživao podatke oko godinu dana, i stalno sam slušao fraze slične ovoj: "Podaci su nafta današnjice." A podaci i jesu sveprisutni resurs koji možemo oblikovati da bismo stvorili nove izume ili otvorili neke nove poglede na svet i nalaze se svuda oko nas i veoma lako se mogu vaditi. U današnje vreme to i nije naročito uspela metafora, naročito ako živite u blizini Meksičkog zaliva, zato bih je malo prilagodio, i rekao bih da su podaci plodno tlo današnjice. Jer, za mene, to i jeste plodan, kreativni medijum. Vremenom smo onlajn pohranili ogromne količine informacija i podataka, i negovali smo ih stvaranjem mreža i povezivanjem, a o njima su se starali i sa njima su radili volonteri i vlade. I, slažem se, možda malo preterujem, Ali to je zaista veoma plodan medijum, i čini se da vizualizacije, grafički prikazi, prikazi podataka naprosto cvetaju u tom medijumu. Ali ako pogledamo neposredno, to je samo masa nepovezanih podataka. Ali ako krenete da se sa njima igrate na određeni način, mogu da se pojave zanimljive stvari i mogu da se otkriju različite sheme.
Let me show you this. Can you guess what this data set is? What rises twice a year, once in Easter and then two weeks before Christmas, has a mini peak every Monday, and then flattens out over the summer? I'll take answers. (Audience: Chocolate.) David McCandless: Chocolate. You might want to get some chocolate in. Any other guesses? (Audience: Shopping.) DM: Shopping. Yeah, retail therapy might help. (Audience: Sick leave.) DM: Sick leave. Yeah, you'll definitely want to take some time off. Shall we see?
Pokazaću vam. Šta mislite šta predstavljaju ovi podaci? Šta je to čije vrednosti skaču dva puta godišnje, jednom na Uskrs a onda dve nedelje pred Božić, pokazuje mali skok svakog ponedeljka a onda potpuno padne preko leta. Slušam odgovore. (Publika: Čokolada.) Dejvid Mekkendls: Čokolada. Možete i čokoladu dodati. Još neko? (Publika: Kupovina.) DM: Kupovina. Jeste, terapija u maloprodaji možda pomogne. (Publika: Bolovanje.) DM: Bolovanje. Jeste, sasvim ćete sigurno poželeti slobodne dane. Da pogledamo?
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
So, the information guru Lee Byron and myself, we scraped 10,000 status Facebook updates for the phrase "break-up" and "broken-up" and this is the pattern we found -- people clearing out for Spring Break, (Laughter) coming out of very bad weekends on a Monday, being single over the summer, and then the lowest day of the year, of course: Christmas Day. Who would do that? So there's a titanic amount of data out there now, unprecedented. But if you ask the right kind of question, or you work it in the right kind of way, interesting things can emerge.
Informacije koje vidite ovde, sakupili smo Li Bajron i ja iz 10000 ažuriranja statusa na Fejsbuku tražili smo frazu "raskid" ili "raskinuli" i ovo je shema do koje smo došli - ljudi prave veliko spremanje pred prolećni raspust, (Smeh) izlaze iz groznih vikenda ponedeljkom, preko leta nisu u vezi. A onda, tu je najniža vrednost u toku godine koju beležimo na Božić. Ko bi to uradio? Postoji nezamislivo velika količina podataka, kao nikada ranije. Ali ako postavite pravo pitanje, ili ako podatke obradite na pravi način, dolazite do veoma zanimljivih stvari.
So information is beautiful. Data is beautiful. I wonder if I could make my life beautiful. And here's my visual C.V. I'm not quite sure I've succeeded. Pretty blocky, the colors aren't that great. But I wanted to convey something to you. I started as a programmer, and then I worked as a writer for many years, about 20 years, in print, online and then in advertising, and only recently have I started designing. And I've never been to design school. I've never studied art or anything. I just kind of learned through doing. And when I started designing, I discovered an odd thing about myself. I already knew how to design, but it wasn't like I was amazingly brilliant at it, but more like I was sensitive to the ideas of grids and space and alignment and typography. It's almost like being exposed to all this media over the years had instilled a kind of dormant design literacy in me. And I don't feel like I'm unique.
U informacijama nalazimo lepotu. Podaci kriju lepotu. Pitam se da li bih mogao da i sebi slične prikažem lepima. Evo moje vizualizovane biografije. Nisam siguran da sam u tome uspeo. Prilično je nezgrapno. Ni boje nisu baš nešto. Ali hteo sam nešto da vam ispričam. Počeo sam kao programer, a onda sam niz godina radio kao pisac, skoro 20 godina, prvo u štampanom medijumu, onlajn a onda i u reklamnoj industriji, i tek sam nedavno počeo da radim dizajn. A nikada nisam išao u školu za dizajn. Niti sam studirao umetnost. Jednostavno sam učio kroz rad. I kada sam počeo da radim dizajn, otkrio sam neke neobične stvari o sebi. Već sam znao kako se to radi, mada ne mogu reći da sam postigao neke izvanredne rezultate pre bih rekao da sam imao osećaj za prostornost i za modularno predstavljanje prostora za tipografiju i za poravnavanje sloga strane. Kao da je izloženost tom medijumu toliko mnogo godina u meni probudilo neku pismenost za dizajn koje nisam bio svestan. Ne mislim da sam jedinstveni slučaj.
I feel that everyday, all of us now are being blasted by information design. It's being poured into our eyes through the Web, and we're all visualizers now; we're all demanding a visual aspect to our information. There's something almost quite magical about visual information. It's effortless, it literally pours in. And if you're navigating a dense information jungle, coming across a beautiful graphic or a lovely data visualization, it's a relief, it's like coming across a clearing in the jungle. I was curious about this, so it led me to the work of a Danish physicist called Tor Norretranders, and he converted the bandwidth of the senses into computer terms.
Osećam da smo svakoga dana, svi mi zatrpani dizajnom informacija. Izliva se u naše oči kroz Mrežu, i svi se oslanjamo na vizualizaciju; svi zahtevamo da informacije sadrže vizuelnu komponentu. A u vizuelnoj informaciji ima nečeg čarobnog. Dešava se bez napora; bukvalno se izliva. Ako se krećete kroz teško prohodnu džunglu informacija, kad naiđete na neke izvanredne crteže ili na očaravajuće vizualizacije podataka, to predstavlja olakšanje, kao da ste na tom neprohodnom terenu naišli na čistinu. Mene je radoznalost povela ka radovima danskog fizičara po imenu Tor Noretranders, koji je preveo opseg čula u računarsku terminologiju.
So here we go. This is your senses, pouring into your senses every second. Your sense of sight is the fastest. It has the same bandwidth as a computer network. Then you have touch, which is about the speed of a USB key. And then you have hearing and smell, which has the throughput of a hard disk. And then you have poor old taste, which is like barely the throughput of a pocket calculator. And that little square in the corner, a naught .7 percent, that's the amount we're actually aware of. So a lot of your vision -- the bulk of it is visual, and it's pouring in. It's unconscious. The eye is exquisitely sensitive to patterns in variations in color, shape and pattern. It loves them, and it calls them beautiful. It's the language of the eye. If you combine the language of the eye with the language of the mind, which is about words and numbers and concepts, you start speaking two languages simultaneously, each enhancing the other. So, you have the eye, and then you drop in the concepts. And that whole thing -- it's two languages both working at the same time.
Evo ga. Ovo su vaša čula, i ono što primate čulima svake sekunde. Čulo vida je najbrže. Ima istu brzinu kao i računarska mreža. Onda je tu dodir, čija je brzina slična brzini USB priključka. Potom dolaze sluh i njuh, čija je brzina ekvivalentna brzini hard-diska. I na kraju imate bedno čulo ukusa, koje jedva da može da parira brzini digitrona. A ovaj malecki kvadratić, 0,7 posto, to je količina podataka kojih smo zapravo svesni. Tako da veliki deo vizuelnog - najveći deo ovih informacija je vizuelnog tipa, i jednostavno se uliva. Toga nismo ni svesni. Dok je oko izuzetno osetljivo na varijacije u boji, obliku i uzorku. Dopadaju mu se i smatra ih lepim. To je jezik oka. A ako kombinujete jezik oka i jezik uma, koji se sastoji od reči, brojeva i pojmova, govorite dva jezika istovremeno, i oni jedan drugog upotpunjuju. Imate oko, i sada dodajete pojmove. I sve skupa - ta dva jezika deluje istovremeno.
So we can use this new kind of language, if you like, to alter our perspective or change our views. Let me ask you a simple question with a really simple answer: Who has the biggest military budget? It's got to be America, right? Massive. 609 billion in 2008 -- 607, rather. So massive, in fact, that it can contain all the other military budgets in the world inside itself. Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble. Now, you can see Africa's total debt there and the U.K. budget deficit for reference. So that might well chime with your view that America is a sort of warmongering military machine, out to overpower the world with its huge industrial-military complex. But is it true that America has the biggest military budget? Because America is an incredibly rich country. In fact, it's so massively rich that it can contain the four other top industrialized nations' economies inside itself, it's so vastly rich. So its military budget is bound to be enormous. So, to be fair and to alter our perspective, we have to bring in another data set, and that data set is GDP, or the country's earnings. Who has the biggest budget as a proportion of GDP? Let's have a look. That changes the picture considerably. Other countries pop into view that you, perhaps, weren't considering, and American drops into eighth.
Ovaj novi jezik možemo koristiti, na primer, da promenimo ugao gledanja ili svoja stanovišta. Postaviću vam jednostavno pitanje na koje je jednostavno odgovoriti. Ko ima najveći vojni budžet? Mora biti da je Amerika? Ogroman je. 609 milijardi 2008 - zapravo 607. Toliko je veliki da zapravo sadrži vojne budžete svih drugih zemalja na svetu. Žder, žder, žder... Ovde vidite ukupni dug Afrike i budžetski deficit Velike Britanije radi poređenja. U tom smislu može se reći da Amerika u određenom smislu investira u ratovanje, u vojnu mašineriju, s namerom da nadvlada sve na svetu svojim ogromnim vojno-industrijskim kompleksom. Ali da li je zaista tako, da li Amerika ima najveći vojni budžet? To je nezamislivo bogata zemlja. Toliko je ogromno njeno bogatstvo da sadrži čak četiri ekonomije vodećih industrijskih nacija toliko je nezamislivo bogata. Srazmerno tome, i vojni budžet mora biti ogroman. Da bismo bili pošteni, i da bismo sve sagledali i iz druge perspektive, moramo da uvedeo još jedan set podataka, a to je bruto nacionalni dohodak, ili ono što zemlja zarađuje. Čiji je budžet najveći u odnosu na BND? Da pogledamo. Slika se značajno izmenila. I druge zemlje, koje nismo uzimali u razmatranje dolaze u prvi plan. a Amerikanci padaju na osmo mesto.
Now you can also do this with soldiers. Who has the most soldiers? It's got to be China. Of course, 2.1 million. Again, chiming with your view that China has a militarized regime ready to, you know, mobilize its enormous forces. But of course, China has an enormous population. So if we do the same, we see a radically different picture. China drops to 124th. It actually has a tiny army when you take other data into consideration. So, absolute figures, like the military budget, in a connected world, don't give you the whole picture. They're not as true as they could be.
Isto to možemo uraditi sa brojem vojnika. Ko ima najviše vojnika? Mora biti da je to Kina. Naravno, 2,1 milion. I opet, u skladu sa pretpostavkom da je Kina zemlja vojnog režima spreman da u svakom trenutku mobilizira svoje snage. Ali ne zaboravimo da Kina ima ogroman broj stanovnika. Ako opet uradimo poređenje, vidimo da se slika iz korena menja. Kina pada na 124. mesto. Zapravo ima minijaturnu vojsku kada se i drugi podaci uzmu u obzir. Apsolutne vrednosti, kao vojni budžet, u umreženom svetu, ne pružaju uvid u celu sliku. Nisu istinite u onoj meri u kojoj se to očekuje.
We need relative figures that are connected to other data so that we can see a fuller picture, and then that can lead to us changing our perspective. As Hans Rosling, the master, my master, said, "Let the dataset change your mindset." And if it can do that, maybe it can also change your behavior.
Potrebno nam je upoređivanje sa drugim podacima da sagledamo celu sliku, i da tako promenimo ugao gledanja. Kao što kaže Hans Rosling, vrhunski stručnjak, moj mentor, "Dozvolite da pogled na podatke promeni vaš pogled na svet." I ako se to dogodi, možda će se promeniti i vaše ponašanje.
Take a look at this one. I'm a bit of a health nut. I love taking supplements and being fit, but I can never understand what's going on in terms of evidence. There's always conflicting evidence. Should I take vitamin C? Should I be taking wheatgrass? This is a visualization of all the evidence for nutritional supplements. This kind of diagram is called a balloon race. So the higher up the image, the more evidence there is for each supplement. And the bubbles correspond to popularity as regards to Google hits. So you can immediately apprehend the relationship between efficacy and popularity, but you can also, if you grade the evidence, do a "worth it" line. So supplements above this line are worth investigating, but only for the conditions listed below, and then the supplements below the line are perhaps not worth investigating.
Pogledajte ovo. Ja sam pomalo zaluđenik zdravim životom. Obožavam dodatke prehrani i volim da sam u dobroj kondiciji, ali mi nikad nije bilo jasno šta se tu dešava što se može dokazati. Dokazi su uvek kontradiktorni. Treba li da uzimam vitamin C? Da li da jedem pšenične klice? Ovo je vizualizacija svih dokaza koji su u vezi sa dodacima prehrani. Ovaj dijagram se zove "nadmetanje balona". Što je slika na višem položaju, ima više dokaza da taj dodatak deluje. A mehurići predstavljaju popularnost u odnosu na Guglove rezultate pretraživanja. Odmah se vidi odnos efikasnosti i popularnosti ali isto tako, dokaze možemo da gradiramo, u niz po tome kakav im je učinak. tako iznad ove crte imamo one koje ima smisla istraživati, ali samo u odnosu na uslove postavljene dole. A onda dodaci koji su ispod crte pripadaju grupi koju možda nema smisla istraživati.
Now this image constitutes a huge amount of work. We scraped like 1,000 studies from PubMed, the biomedical database, and we compiled them and graded them all. And it was incredibly frustrating for me because I had a book of 250 visualizations to do for my book, and I spent a month doing this, and I only filled two pages. But what it points to is that visualizing information like this is a form of knowledge compression. It's a way of squeezing an enormous amount of information and understanding into a small space. And once you've curated that data, and once you've cleaned that data, and once it's there, you can do cool stuff like this.
Ovaj prikaz predstavlja ogroman napor u obradi podataka. Pregledali smo preko 1000 studija sa PubMed-a, biomedicinske baze podataka, i sve smo ih sakupili i gradirali. A za mene je to bilo neverovatno naporno jer sam imao knjigu sa 250 vizualizacija koje je trebalo obraditi za knjigu, i proveo sam mesece u tom poslu, a ispunio sam tek dve stranice. Ali, to sve ukazuje da je vizualizacija podataka oblik njihove kompresije. To je način da se ogromna količina informacija i tumačenja sabije u veoma malo prostora. I kada se ti podaci pročiste i urede, i kada se prikažu na ovaj način, sa njima se može raditi mnogo zanimljivih stvari.
So I converted this into an interactive app, so I can now generate this application online -- this is the visualization online -- and I can say, "Yeah, brilliant." So it spawns itself. And then I can say, "Well, just show me the stuff that affects heart health." So let's filter that out. So heart is filtered out, so I can see if I'm curious about that. I think, "No, no. I don't want to take any synthetics, I just want to see plants and -- just show me herbs and plants. I've got all the natural ingredients." Now this app is spawning itself from the data. The data is all stored in a Google Doc, and it's literally generating itself from that data. So the data is now alive; this is a living image, and I can update it in a second. New evidence comes out. I just change a row on a spreadsheet. Doosh! Again, the image recreates itself. So it's cool. It's kind of living.
Ovo sam konvertovao u interaktivnu aplikaciju, i sada mogu da je pokrenem onlajn - ovo je vizualizacija onlajn - i mogu da kažem, "Jupi, izvanredno." Ona samu sebe generiše. I sad mogu da kažem, "Pa, samo mi pokaži materijal koji govori o uticaju na srce." Hajde da to izdvojimo. Srce smo izdvojili, i ako me to zanima. Pomisliću, "Ne, ne. Neću sintetičke proizvode. Hoću da vidim samo biljke - prikaži mi samo bilje i trave. Trebaju mi samo prirodni sastojci." Evo, aplikacija samu sebe generiše iz podataka. Podaci su pohranjeni u Gugl dokumentima, i bukvalno se ovo samo od sebe generiše iz tih podataka. Podaci su oživeli; ovo je živa slika, i mogu da je ažuriram u trenu. Pojaviće se novi dokazi - i ja ću samo promeniti jedan red u tabeli. Pljus! Opet, slika se sama obnavlja. To je jako zgodno. I predstavlja oblik života.
But it can go beyond data, and it can go beyond numbers. I like to apply information visualization to ideas and concepts. This is a visualization of the political spectrum, an attempt for me to try and understand how it works and how the ideas percolate down from government into society and culture, into families, into individuals, into their beliefs and back around again in a cycle. What I love about this image is it's made up of concepts, it explores our worldviews and it helps us -- it helps me anyway -- to see what others think, to see where they're coming from. And it feels just incredibly cool to do that.
Ali može da dosegne i dalje od podataka, i dalje od brojki. I dopada mi se da primenjujem vizualizaciju informacija na ideje i pojmove. Ovo je vizualizacija političkog spektra, u pokušaju da razumem kako to funkcioniše i kako ideje iz vlade dolaze u društvo i u kulturu, u porodice, u glave pojedinaca, u njihova uverenja i odatle se vraćaju u krug. U ovoj slici posebno smatram vrednim to što je sačinjena od pojmova, i istražuje naše poglede na svet i pomaže nam - barem meni pomaže - da sagledam šta drugi misle, da shvatim njihova stanovišta, a to je odličan osećaj.
What was most exciting for me designing this was that, when I was designing this image, I desperately wanted this side, the left side, to be better than the right side -- being a journalist, a Left-leaning person -- but I couldn't, because I would have created a lopsided, biased diagram. So, in order to really create a full image, I had to honor the perspectives on the right-hand side and at the same time, uncomfortably recognize how many of those qualities were actually in me, which was very, very annoying and uncomfortable. (Laughter) But not too uncomfortable, because there's something unthreatening about seeing a political perspective, versus being told or forced to listen to one. You're capable of holding conflicting viewpoints joyously when you can see them. It's even fun to engage with them because it's visual. So that's what's exciting to me, seeing how data can change my perspective and change my mind midstream -- beautiful, lovely data.
Najuzbudljivije u postupku stvaranja ove slike za mene je bilo to što sam očajnički sebe želeo da stavim na ovu stranu, na levu stranu, i hteo sam da ona bude bolja od desne strane - jer sam takav novinar - leve orijentacije - ali nisam mogao to da izvedem, jer bih kreirao pristrasan dijagram. Tako da bih kreirao pravu sliku, Morao sam da poštujem i perspektivu desne strane a istovremeno, morao sam da s nelagodom priznam da mnoge osobine i sam posedujem, što može biti veoma neprijatno. (Smeh) No, nije previše neprijatno, jer svakako nas manje ugrožava posmatranje političke opcije, nego situacija u kojoj nam se to sve saopštava usmeno Ovako, zapravo, možemo da sagledamo sukobljene perspektive sa radošću, u situaciji u kojoj ih gledate. Čak može biti i veoma zanimljivo proučavati ih jer su predstavljene vizuelno. Smatram da je to veoma uzbudljivo, posmatrati kako podaci menjaju moju perspektvu i menjati svoje mišljenje u tom procesu - izvanredni, divni podaci.
So, just to wrap up, I wanted to say that it feels to me that design is about solving problems and providing elegant solutions, and information design is about solving information problems. It feels like we have a lot of information problems in our society at the moment, from the overload and the saturation to the breakdown of trust and reliability and runaway skepticism and lack of transparency, or even just interestingness. I mean, I find information just too interesting. It has a magnetic quality that draws me in.
I za kraj, hteo sam da kažem da mi se čini da se i dizajn bavi rešavanjem problema i pronalaženjem elegantnih rešenja. A dizajn informacija bavi se rešavanjem problema informacija. A čini se da imamo mnogo problema sa informacijama u našem društvu, koji je posledica preopterećenosti i zasićenja ili gubitka poverenja i pouzdanosti i porasta skepticizma i nedostatka transparetnosti, ili čak zainteresovanosti. Hoću da kažem, za mene su informacije isuviše zanimljive. Poseduju prvilačnost kojoj lako podležem.
So, visualizing information can give us a very quick solution to those kinds of problems. Even when the information is terrible, the visual can be quite beautiful. Often we can get clarity or the answer to a simple question very quickly, like this one, the recent Icelandic volcano. Which was emitting the most CO2? Was it the planes or the volcano, the grounded planes or the volcano? So we can have a look. We look at the data and we see: Yep, the volcano emitted 150,000 tons; the grounded planes would have emitted 345,000 if they were in the sky. So essentially, we had our first carbon-neutral volcano.
Vizualizacija informacija nam daje veoma brzo rešenje ovakvih problema. A i onda kada su informacije užasne, njihova vizuelna komponenta može biti veoma lepa. I često nešto možemo razjasniti nešto ili pronaći odgovore na pitanja veoma brzo, kao što je ovo, nedavna erupcija vulkana na Islandu. Šta ispušta najviše ugljen dioksida? Da li su to avioni ili vulkan, prizemljeni avioni ili vulkani? Pogledaćemo. Gledamo podatke i vidimo jeste, vulkan je ispustio 150000 tona; prizemljeni avioni bi ispustili 345000 da su bili u vazduhu. Pa tako, zapravo, ovo je prvi vulkan sa neutralnom emisijom ugljenika.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
And that is beautiful. Thank you.
I to je ono što je lepo. Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)