Response to Cruel Pies: The Inhumanity of Technical Illustrations

I am torn between the two sides of this debate, but let me first begin with a summary. Dragga & Voss begin by discussing the fact that technical communicators are part of the humanities; we have done a great job of adapting the spoken and written word according to this principle. However, when it comes to visual images, charts, graphs and the like, we have failed miserably. In fact, we have approached visual text as if we are scientists - depicting humans and the human condition as mere numbers on a chart. The main argument, in other words, is that we should also infuse a humanistic perspective in our visual arguments by using icons (pictograph of soldiers or human faces), semantic fusion (incorporating words such as quotes to show the humanistic perspective), and selectively-placed images (lumberjack at work or a baby in walker at the top of the stairs).

First, let me say that I was not even aware that there existed an entire body of knowledge about the ethics of visual images. Where and when did this happen? And more importantly, how did I miss it? When I think about the concept of “graphic lies” (a term used in the article), I first think of technology products. What are the implications of such distortion for the corporation that owns the product? And does this somehow lessen the value of their products? I am a devout PC user here, but the example that immediately comes to mind is Windows. Microsoft continues to promise the consumer fast and reliable products (in their images on TV, the web, etc.); yet, their promises rarely hold true. But, we continue to purchase the products. But this could just be because of the pervasiveness of MS in our culture. So…what would be some other examples?

Dragga & Voss were obviously aware of the type of reaction they would get from readers. For example, in their closing statements they mention that no graphics are worse than cruel graphics. Furthermore, they state that infusing humanistic ethics in graphic depictions would change the conventions and theoretical principles of design. But, they say that this is the point. “A humanistic ethic would require us to perceive sensitivity and efficacy as at least equally important, as reciprocal and recursive influences on the design of visual communication. (7)” All I can think is don’t we already get this type of display when we watch the news everynight? Granted that may be an example of the cruel depiction of graphics, but it is nonetheless a depiction. So, I remain undecided about this topic, but it does get you thinking about things. And one other thing: I can’t say that I will ever look at a table, chart, or statistical data the same ever again. (So, maybe Dragga & Voss did get me to pay attention.)

February 24th, 2009 in Visual Rhetoric/Doc Design

Cynthia PengillyOnline teaching, dissertation work, and other academic stuff

Response to Cruel Pies: The Inhumanity of Technical Illustrations

Author

Archives

Categories

DE Classmates

Links