In the class on Thursday(08/22), each of us was demanded to talk about a project that we thought was the most inspiring one for our own work. And this piece, The World through the Eyes of the US, was the one for me.
The Task
Let’s talk a bit about “the task” first.
“Choose 2–3 visualizations, infographics, or data stories that you find inspiring, then come back to class ready to present them to other students and explain why you find them inspiring for your own work…”
But what exactly is “my own work”?
That is actually a much more difficult question to answer.
For me, to discover “my own work” is about looking for the topic that I most care about and the way that I feel the most comfortable to express, explain and analyze. The method I use is always “a kind” of case-study, which one important thing that needs to keep in mind is that you should be really honest about the feelings of yourself.
That means you need to case-study the piece that you just can’t move your eyes from the first glance with the reasons you don’t actually know at that point, instead of consciously choosing the case which topic you think that’s important or the styles you think that’s eye-catching. That’s very different from the kind of case-study in this task.
From The World through the Eyes of the US, the most valuable lesson I’d learned was that I finally found “my own work”.
The Topic
It took me a long time to interpret the real topic of this case.
In the surface, it is about a kind of observation of our history. But when we keep asking questions like:
Are the perspectives of “the US” equal to that of “New York Times”?
If they are, why?
If they aren’t, what exactly made the author think they are almost the same?
In this sense, the kind of observation and the awareness it intends to make and invoke is not only outwards but also inwards.
The Structure
- The visible part: The contents of this case are really structured in a concise and logic way — the short intro is sitting at the top, and the chart that reveals general patterns is beneath it, with the detailed annotations alongside. With the behavior, scrolling, the chart unfolds along with its timeline; with the behavior, hovering, it intrigues the connection between general patterns and detailed annotations.
Somehow, I feel that the structure that’s more concise might encourage deeper thoughts.
- The invisible part: In this case, there is actually a hidden structure that’s very easy to be ignored, which is the consistency and contrast between the initial memory or impression of the history of each of the readers and the history revealed by NYT in this case.
Consistency might yield a certain amount of satisfaction, while the contrast might provoke a sort of tension mentally which is an uncomfortable feeling — exactly the feeling that inspires people to ask more questions. And the answers for that are not necessarily holding in the case, but readers are already unlikely to stop inquiring more.
Ultimately, it’s really not all about what exactly are the real answers for those questions, it’s also about keeping the memory of that “uncomfortable feeling”.
For me, the two parts are equally important. And if I ever have any expectation for “my own work”, I hope it will bring the readers with the experiences of both.
