An interesting discussion over BBC that ended too early, it's only touching the tip of the surface.
Brody pointed out a strong argument regarding the depth of the presented information must be as equivalent as the information itself. There is a danger of losing connectivity in between the audience with the property of the data, whenever it is presented merely as 'blobs or beautiful composed shapes'.
Which come to mind, on the flipside of the issue where the messages is as an equivalent visuals expression without any imposed conservative nor reservation to the design.
Carson debated this through by the comparison with the inability of a text to expressed in what it stands or represented for. Carson is looking at the information as the message itself.
But, where do we (designers) draw the line to what we imposed our intervention to the presented data+ information?
Should it be fully reserved and intricately created to more 'corporate look', let's say for an example the gradual increasing price of oil?
A chart that no one could relate to in a glimpse beyond its impact on any regular joe's on the streets nor the other reasons of why the prices is increased. Corporation love it because it doesn't expressed anything on a consumer level when they start paying for it at the pump.
If it does visualize to the relating subjects/ objects,
Numbers of death from the Lebanon / Israeli conflict.
The impact of death are now merely dots of boxes. (perhaps this why we still goes to war).
So then, should we go over the top?
The debate shall continue.
Created during my students days as a presentation for a subject. A report titled - "What happen to The Malaysian Housing back in 1980's".
My attempt to relate the influence of industrialization, the migrations from the rural villages to the industrialized cities and the source of a quick solution to the housing problems due to this migration.