Is a picture always worth a 1000 words?

In an attempt to better understand the subject of visualization or graphics, I came across an article based on a panel discussion on the usefulness or limitations of traditional and computer generated visuals in conveying information effectively. The discussions were centered on the common saying that ‘a picture is worth a 1000 words’. The following statements from some of the panelists caught my attention;

“A Picture May Be (Or May Not Be) Worth A Thousand Words: Lessons From The
WWW?
Barbara Mones-Hattal
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but
those words may not be the same from one person to the next. It has always been
a challenge for the artist to design with simplicity, subtlety, and sensitivity.
The integration of text and image is not new to the artist.” (p.2)

“A Picture is Not a Picture is Not a Picture...: A Picture Could be Worth a
1,000, 1/1,000, or -1,000 Words
Nahum Gershon
The difficulty in
representing information clearly, the dependency of visual and information
perception on past memories, experiences, beliefs, and culture and the
difficulty in making effective use of color are some examples illustrating the
frailty of image representations…….. But, we need to make sure in these cases,
the viewers are aware of this fact deep in their minds. Otherwise, we might
create pictures that are worth 1/1,000 (Hanson, 1970) of a word or even -1,000
words.” (p.2)

“P1000: A Picture is Worth 1000 Words
Russ Rose
In this era of the
information explosion, there exists the need to take advantage of the power
provided by the human’s visual processing system….A picture is worth 1000 words;
that is, in 1/1000 the time, a visual image can be processed and analyzed rather
than being represented and processed as words. If represented as words, it would
often require more than 1000 words, would take 1000 times as long to understand,
and would still not communicate the content as comprehensively as a visual image
can. The visual representation of the information, however, must be based on a
comprehensive and information rich structure. If not, it will easily not be
worth a single word, let alone the 1000 words (we all have sat through tiring
briefings centered around charts cluttered with information-free clip art that
provides no more than visual noise).” (p.2)

Excerpts from: Gershon, N. D. (1996). Breaking the myth: One picture is NOT (always) worth a thousand words. Conference proceedings: 7th IEEE Visualization Conference. Retrieved February 8th, 2006, from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/4271/12277/00569203.pdf?arnumber=569203

The different views expressed by the three panelists captures very well what Chapter 14 on Visual Representation of Risks is all about. Though the panelists expressed different views to the common saying that ‘a picture is worth a 1000 words’, to me they were all right since they advanced and justified their positions arguably well. Analysis of their positions and discussions gives insight into qualities of effective graphics or visuals. While the importance of visuals in communicating risks cannot be underscored, it is also worth noting that “poorly designed or produced visuals are worse than no visuals at all” (p. 221). It is therefore important to design and format visuals based on the needs of the target audience. This is so because though a picture may be worth a thousand words, those words may not be the same from one audience to the next (point indicated by first panelists). It is therefore important to analyze the audience, because failure to so may result in designing visuals that may either dilute (1/1000) or portray something negative (-1000) to what one intended to communicate. Three tips are provided for designing visuals for specific audiences and uses; identify “what people want to know, what they need to know to make informed decision and how the visual information will be used” (p. 215). It is necessary also that the graphic designs support the information to be communicated.

One key thing I learned from this reading is the need to pre-test the visual or graphic with the audience. It is common that in undertaking research studies, all researchers are aware of the need to pre-test their instruments (for reliability) and adapt them to facilitate getting adequate information they need. This is equally relevant to risk communication, graphics should be pre-tested and adapted accordingly to enhance relevance and effective impact – to ensure that they will reliably communicate what they are designed to communicate.

The issue of ethics is as well revisited in this chapter, this time related to ‘graphical integrity’. The concerns are that messages portrayed are sometimes manipulative or deceptive. Manipulative messages are very common in communication of health risks or crisis. Risk communicators are cautioned against dangers of pictorial exaggeration and ‘chartjunt’ (using decorative design to obscure the meaning of data).

The good thing about this chapter is that for every item discussed examples are provided in the form of relevant studies and types of visuals. There are actually 16 figures showing illustrations, graphs, charts, tables, maps and other different forms through which visuals may be presented. Though I have not counted visuals or figures presented in other chapters, I would not be surprised if I find this chapter to be containing most figures compared to others since it discusses visuals or graphics. Where else should they be demonstrated if not in this chapter?