Seeing the building of database and the visualization of data as two separate tasks, a lot of the issues we’re facing with data visualization is actually due to lack of organized database. Sometimes the seeking of good visual ends up merely in format rather than good communication.

The walkable affinity mapping is an interesting experiment as such scale is not often explored in data visualization. And interaction is often associated with pre-programmed animations imposed on the visuals by the designer, triggered by the viewer within the screen space. But in this case the data stayed passive, and interaction is only suggested upon human movements and perceived totally subjectively from each person’s perspective. The control of the dynamics is now in the viewer’s hand, having various possibilities. But also because of being static the flexibility of dynamically responding to new inputs and simulations of relationships is eliminated.

Reading from the paper of the design process, the map is trying to incorporate many levels of information and affinities into one graphic. Looking back on the topic of affordance and the three questions they’re trying to answer in the beginning of the project, I wonder how intuitive it is for people to read from the rather complex diagrams and find out about affinities at first glance. Without a little explanation the graphics may need some time to be understood properly, for example the meaning of the thickness of the rings and arcs.