4 ms·

It is true that graphs communicate very well. But they do come from text... And in the end we need to be able to describe what we see in them in text.

smj-edison 10mo ago
But they are multiple different "views" into data, and I would posit that a textual view of data is no different than a graphical view, no? If you import data from a parquet file, you go straight from numbers to graphs, so I disagree that it comes from text. Both graphs and text come from information. Circles on surveys, Arduino temperature readings, counter clickers when doing surveys. Those are not just text.
tsimionescu 10mo ago
No, you do not need to, and will not generally be able to, describe everything that a graph conveys in text. Graphs can give you an intuitive understanding of the data that text would not be able to, simply by virtue of using other parts of the brain and requiring less short term memory. If a graph can be replaced with 5 pages of text, that doesn't mean that you get the same information from both - you're likely much more able to keep one image in your short term memory than 5 pages of text.
- godelski 10mo ago
  A word is worth a thousand images. Wait...
- inciampati 10mo ago
  But a graph, which provides a view at a certain level of resolution, can often be described in a few consise statements. That's why we make them, to get a view we can condense.
  - tsimionescu 10mo ago
    No, if we can condense something in a few short statements, we don't generally bother making a graph. We exactly make graphs when something is not easily explained in words, but instead requires visualization. Of course, not all graphs are equally information dense, and some are only used for decorative purposes more than actually conveying information. But in the general case, and especially when used well, graphs convey much more information at a glance than a short text description could.
  - PopAlongKid 10mo ago
    Many years ago, in college, I used to volunteer for Recording For The Blind, reading various math texts aloud. I had to verbally describe every illustration in the textbook, including graphs, using a few concise statements. Not perfect, but possible.
    - tsimionescu 10mo ago
      You can describe any graph to some low level of detail, sure. But does it actually help anyone? Do people with complete blindness, for example, gain anything from hearing a description of the graph of f(x) = x as "a straight line at a 45° angle crossing the graph at 0", compared to what seeing people gain from viewing that graph?
  - smj-edison 10mo ago
    I feel like it's more that we have statements that are "pointers" to the graph. "According to Figure 1, we see that temperature rises do to pressure." So we can summarise with words, but the intuition and proof comes from the visual medium.
godelski 10mo ago
I think you're reaching. Justifying the answer you want rather than the answer that is. No, graphs do not need come from text. I've frequently hand generated graphs as my means of recording experimental output. This is a common method when high precision is not needed (because your uncertainty level is the size of your markers). But that's true for graphs in general anyways. Importantly, graphs are better at conveying the relationship between data, rather than information about a single point. (something something - Poincaré ;) Besides, plots aren't the only types of graphs. Try network graphs. Besides, graphs aren't the only visual communication of data. I'll give you an even more obvious one: CAD. Sure, you can do that in text... but it takes much more room to do and magnitudes more time to interpret. So much so that everyone is going to retranslate it into a picture. Hell, I'll draw on paper before even pulling up the software and that's not uncommon.
- inciampati 10mo ago
  > CAD. Sure, you can do that in text... but it takes much more room to do and magnitudes more time to interpret. Fascinating example for me. I do CAD... using text! My only experience with it is programmatic in openscad. We check the visualization, but only on output of the final product. For me it's dramatically easier to work with. That may be a personal defect but it's also consistent. Underneath the rendering is always data, which is text, markup, but strings of fundamental data. And in science it's not a stretch at all that numbers come first. I'll argue you're reaching. Today no one is drawing their numbers from experiments directly on a graph. They record them digitally. In textual form typically, and then render them visually to obtain generic understanding. But also there, in the end, your conclusions (per tradition) need to be point estimates with error bounds expressible in concise textual terms. You may obtain them from looking at images but the hard truth is numerical, digital, textual.
  - VorpalWay 10mo ago
    I have tried OpenSCAD, but found it extremely limited and awkward. I much prefer parametric CAD like Fusion 360, OnShape (which I'm currently using) or FreeCAD (which has a really bad UX). And my day job is as a C++/Rust developer, so you would think that I would have good chances to prefer a textual representation. Part of this might be OpenSCAD specifically. It is CSG based, which is really not ideal, making it hard to add things like chamfers and fillets to your model. Most OpenSCAD models I come across for 3D printing have a crude look probably because this is so hard. But part of it is just that text for most people just isn't the right representation in this case. (If you look at the relative usage of parametric CAD to textual CAD on sites for 3D models you will see that I'm right. Also, look at what approach commercial packages offer.)

smj-edison 10mo ago

But they are multiple different "views" into data, and I would posit that a textual view of data is no different than a graphical view, no? If you import data from a parquet file, you go straight from numbers to graphs, so I disagree that it comes from text. Both graphs and text come from information. Circles on surveys, Arduino temperature readings, counter clickers when doing surveys. Those are not just text.

tsimionescu 10mo ago

No, you do not need to, and will not generally be able to, describe everything that a graph conveys in text. Graphs can give you an intuitive understanding of the data that text would not be able to, simply by virtue of using other parts of the brain and requiring less short term memory. If a graph can be replaced with 5 pages of text, that doesn't mean that you get the same information from both - you're likely much more able to keep one image in your short term memory than 5 pages of text.

godelski 10mo ago
A word is worth a thousand images. Wait...
inciampati 10mo ago
But a graph, which provides a view at a certain level of resolution, can often be described in a few consise statements. That's why we make them, to get a view we can condense.
- tsimionescu 10mo ago
  No, if we can condense something in a few short statements, we don't generally bother making a graph. We exactly make graphs when something is not easily explained in words, but instead requires visualization. Of course, not all graphs are equally information dense, and some are only used for decorative purposes more than actually conveying information. But in the general case, and especially when used well, graphs convey much more information at a glance than a short text description could.
- PopAlongKid 10mo ago
  Many years ago, in college, I used to volunteer for Recording For The Blind, reading various math texts aloud. I had to verbally describe every illustration in the textbook, including graphs, using a few concise statements. Not perfect, but possible.
  - tsimionescu 10mo ago
    You can describe any graph to some low level of detail, sure. But does it actually help anyone? Do people with complete blindness, for example, gain anything from hearing a description of the graph of f(x) = x as "a straight line at a 45° angle crossing the graph at 0", compared to what seeing people gain from viewing that graph?
- smj-edison 10mo ago
  I feel like it's more that we have statements that are "pointers" to the graph. "According to Figure 1, we see that temperature rises do to pressure." So we can summarise with words, but the intuition and proof comes from the visual medium.

godelski 10mo ago

I think you're reaching. Justifying the answer you want rather than the answer that is. No, graphs do not need come from text. I've frequently hand generated graphs as my means of recording experimental output. This is a common method when high precision is not needed (because your uncertainty level is the size of your markers). But that's true for graphs in general anyways. Importantly, graphs are better at conveying the relationship between data, rather than information about a single point. (something something - Poincaré ;) Besides, plots aren't the only types of graphs. Try network graphs. Besides, graphs aren't the only visual communication of data. I'll give you an even more obvious one: CAD. Sure, you can do that in text... but it takes much more room to do and magnitudes more time to interpret. So much so that everyone is going to retranslate it into a picture. Hell, I'll draw on paper before even pulling up the software and that's not uncommon.

inciampati 10mo ago
> CAD. Sure, you can do that in text... but it takes much more room to do and magnitudes more time to interpret. Fascinating example for me. I do CAD... using text! My only experience with it is programmatic in openscad. We check the visualization, but only on output of the final product. For me it's dramatically easier to work with. That may be a personal defect but it's also consistent. Underneath the rendering is always data, which is text, markup, but strings of fundamental data. And in science it's not a stretch at all that numbers come first. I'll argue you're reaching. Today no one is drawing their numbers from experiments directly on a graph. They record them digitally. In textual form typically, and then render them visually to obtain generic understanding. But also there, in the end, your conclusions (per tradition) need to be point estimates with error bounds expressible in concise textual terms. You may obtain them from looking at images but the hard truth is numerical, digital, textual.
- VorpalWay 10mo ago
  I have tried OpenSCAD, but found it extremely limited and awkward. I much prefer parametric CAD like Fusion 360, OnShape (which I'm currently using) or FreeCAD (which has a really bad UX). And my day job is as a C++/Rust developer, so you would think that I would have good chances to prefer a textual representation. Part of this might be OpenSCAD specifically. It is CSG based, which is really not ideal, making it hard to add things like chamfers and fillets to your model. Most OpenSCAD models I come across for 3D printing have a crude look probably because this is so hard. But part of it is just that text for most people just isn't the right representation in this case. (If you look at the relative usage of parametric CAD to textual CAD on sites for 3D models you will see that I'm right. Also, look at what approach commercial packages offer.)