• Drucker mentions the phrase “language of form” being a suggestion for a systematic approach to graphic expression as a means as well as an object of study. I find this to be optimal, as graphics are a very powerful form of communication. Graphics can help us break down information into a form that might be easier for some of us to understand (hence why some people call fhe,selves “visual learners” after all), and putting things into a visual format can help explain/justify information as well (the “means” she refers to).

  • She also mentions that “visualizations are always interpretations—data does not have an inherent visual form that merely gives rise to a graphic expression”. I never really thought anout this to be true until I heard of this. We are able to manipulate data into any form, as we have done before for example with timelines. You can input in data and express it in any form you’d like, there is no one “right” way to present it (although there might be more optimal, ideal ways - it all depends om the needs, but it visual graphics are always an interpretion of what comes to mind and there is never an exact translation of data to image form, it is how we perceive and interpret it that factors into the process of putting a visualization together.