Put two data enthusiasts in the same room and expect the conversation to be all about charts and numbers. Wrong! The unexpected consensus? The human matters more than the data.
Jason Forrest is the founder of the Jason Forrest Agency. His work uses full-stack software to showcase data through experiential activations. He also cofounded Data Vandals, an agency that installs tangible data displays in public spaces. You can find his work at his websites or on the walls of the New York City subway station at 51st and Lexington. Mary Reddy is a data visualization specialist at LEFF with a background that blends fine art, mathematics, and writing. Reddy and Forrest sat down to discuss the best ways to approach an audience with data and how to foster better conversations around it.
Mary Reddy: Tell me about de-emphasizing data visualization and instead thinking of data communication.
Jason Forrest: For a long time, our data viz community has been focused on the ideas of, “What is the right chart for the data? How do you write a label? How do you make the marks? How is it accessible? What are the right colors?” These are valuable points to consider, but all of this is minutiae about the visualization of the data. In my career, I had a lot of understanding of what people could do with data, but after creating Data Vandals in 2021, we immediately started exploring how to make data more empathetic. For the next four years, we created different scenarios, hypotheses, questions, and experiences to do exactly that.
Mary Reddy: I’m thinking of the study you did on homelessness in San Francisco. That was an incredibly expert walk-through of how complex that topic is.
Jason Forrest: Once your goal is not to just make a chart but to actually communicate it to somebody, then the focus stops being on the data, and it shifts to the audience. That changes everything. As you start to learn about that audience, you realize that almost no audience is homogeneous. Your audience has a lived experience that may not be the same as yours. In that case, we realized that our audience was made of people who were informed on the nuances of the complexity of the situation. By trying to understand and build on their lived experience, we created better communication.
Mary Reddy: I’ve had so many charts come across my desk where the statement made above the charts is so authoritative: “Here is the truth. See? Here’s the chart.” And oftentimes, I’ll look at the chart and think, “Eh, does that really confirm that this is exactly what we all should believe?” I’ve often longed for a bit more of a softer edge around that kind of communication.
Jason Forrest: All data is cut in a way to have some influence. It’s all been filtered through individuals’ perceptions. There are certain hard numbers, like GDP or crime or death rates, that you assume are calculated but you realize can be looked at in multiple ways. And then there are things like sentiment scores that have their own process of getting calculated but are a tiny subset of a much bigger issue. It could point you directionally toward some conclusion, but it doesn’t have enough veracity to be legitimate.
Instead of using the data as a cudgel to prove a point, you can say, “Here’s the data. What do you think about it?” That creates a bridge from the data to the reality and fosters a conversation. Conversations activate people. People will have an opinion; they will have a stance. The data alone is not going to change their world, but if they have a good conversation about it, it will stay in their memory and can potentially change a perspective in time.
Mary Reddy: My approach has been, for better or worse, heavily influenced by the caveats around presenting data in the consultant world in which I’ve worked. One of the things I worry about is that we’re using old communication tools to try to solve new problems. How do we get businesses to start thinking differently?
I’m thinking of that graphic you did with the cow. You used more imagery to really pull people in. That approach has been taboo in the stricter school of thought where data must always be precisely visualized. But I’m wondering if we’re getting a little too holier-than-thou. Obviously, there are ways in which you can lard up a chart with unnecessary pictures and fireworks that just distract. But a single image like that cow has so much more of an impact than a standard column chart.
Jason Forrest: The point of that chart was to show that if cows were a country, they’d be the second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. The original chart was scientifically accurate, with two decimal points behind each percentage, and the reality was that nobody cared. Nobody was able to get to the message. My team generated many different versions of pictorial charts to better tell the story. But the cow chart was immediately captivating, and it was the one we kept returning to. It was a hit.
Mary Reddy: I’m curious about how data visualization is going to shift in the future and how any one of us can help promulgate the message. The world is changing so fast, and I think there are a lot of threats to all of us as human beings. I’m curious whether we can find new ways to look at datasets that help us improve the human experience rather than simply improve productivity?
Jason Forrest: There’s a legitimate urgency behind this, which is what gets me passionate about it. That urgency is twofold. One, there is a lack of communication as social media grows. People get further into camps, and that closes off mindsets and the reception of data in general. Look at anything involving sustainability, for example. The issue is more than whether the data represents something that you can understand—it’s about whether you even accept that this is a subject worth discussing at all.
The other major issue is loneliness. People don’t connect like they used to, and I think the reason why we’ve indexed so heavily on building bridges is because we want people to be more social. Backing away from the authoritative nature of data is the beginning of a larger mindset, which is, “We may not see eye to eye, but let’s have a conversation and try to come to some kind of consensus.”
Mary Reddy: To me, the ultimate goal is to use data to improve human experience. I think we too easily have given over our power and identity to algorithms and machines and to the data. So anything that can break that open and remind us of the qualities that allow us to be human will help us turn to our creativity and imagination. We need both of those to solve problems.
Jason Forrest: Do you just keep chipping away and expanding that awareness to the point where someone starts focusing on the things that make them unique and human and interesting? Do you do it till you “win” a mindset? We don’t know what happens when you raise people’s awareness, but what I would bet is that if you can focus on the human, it’ll lead to other things.
It’s wild how much AI is impacting all of this. I’m realizing that when people come to grips with the fact that it can expand their talents, it gives them more time to focus on the empathy part. We have a few projects where we have done this. Code that would’ve taken us two or three weeks to develop now takes us 20 minutes, and that gives us the time to conduct user interviews or test a design or take things to the street. It’s a productivity lift that can have a major impact on making better designs. It’s a skill enhancer like we haven’t really seen before, so you can put your time and money on the areas that do make you more human.
