Slashdot Mirror


Saving Lives with Design

valdean writes "Last year, the White House declassified an August 2001 intelligence brief entitled: 'Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.' Among other things, the brief mentions that Bin Ladin 'wanted to hijack a US aircraft.' So why was it ignored? Graphic designer Greg Storey thinks part of the reason is poor design. He set out to modify the format of the original document into a more legible one."

48 of 430 comments (clear)

  1. hindsight by hugzz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hindsight is always 20/20

    1. Re:hindsight by jaxdahl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      so let's use this hindsight to improve our foresight

    2. Re:hindsight by hugzz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Are you saying bad design can only be recognized in hindsight? Or that having a bad design kill once is an excuse not to change it going forward?

      i'm saying that it may be oh-so-clear to us now how important this document was, so we may think that it's the fault of the design that it was overlooked; but at the time, regardless of they design, they felt it was overlookable.

      at the time there was no design problem. it was simply not an important document. we only think to blame the design now because, using hindsight, we know the document was important.

    3. Re:hindsight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, the whole "ex poste" versus "ex ante" thing turns out to be more than a little complicated.

      Even the "design issue" of the original post presuposes that in and amongst a digital info glut, we have ex ante knowledge about which information to highlight with pretty red boxes.

      Shit happens. A lot. Continuously. There is no way to centrally control it. In real life, there is no root.

      The sooner we dispense with the fiction that any entity (esp. government) can "monitor" and "act on" relevant information, the sooner we might move to a realization that no single entity can dictate behaviour on planet earth.

      The self-defeating meme of US foreign policy is that they just need enough analysts to absorb the information and produce a plan of action.

    4. Re:hindsight by node+3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hindsight is always 20/20

      An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

      (grossly understated, actually--reading a goddamned memo about a known terrorist planning to attack the US is worth ~3,000 lives, two of the world's tallest buildings, part of the Pentagon, four planes, a "smaller" 40+ story building, the Patriot Act, $300bn+, >1.5k troops, 2 wars (so far), well over 100k innocent civilian deaths, our economy, major loss of respect in the eyes of the world, a state of fear, a society on the fast track back to the 1800's and before, and my future.)

      And the best you got is "hindsight is always 20/20"? FUCK YOU!

    5. Re:hindsight by dnoyeb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the question is do we put real people in real positions with real qualifications. Or do we continue to hire our friends and relatives and cronies to important positions.

      I think this comes from the belief that shit happens and you can't stop it so you might as well give the job to a friend who can't stop it either. I disagree. The politicisation of important US security institutions is going to result in very bad security.

    6. Re:hindsight by hawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even on websites targeted towards the intelligent, people post replies to news item.

      This also happens on sites like slashdot :)

      hawk

    7. Re:hindsight by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Anyway, it doesn't matter how the information was presented. Bush DOESN'T READ these reports. He has his staff read them to him [...]

      Actually, Bush doesn't matter much in this topic. The author's point was simply to keep the existence of the document in the news. By that measure, he's done a good job, regardless of what he chose to highlight about the document.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  2. It was ignored on purpose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If a brain-dead vegetable in Florida is about to be taken off life support, Bush drops everything and flies up to Washington. If a known terrorist is "determined" to strike the US, why, it's time for another vacation.

  3. Not possible to take all threats seriously by imemyself · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is, that there are soooooo many theats that its impossible to take all of them seriously. If we did, then people would bitch more about having their liberties taken away, yada yada yada. Hindsight is 20 20. I don't think one intellegience briefing is enough to mandate massive security changes.

    --
    Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    1. Re:Not possible to take all threats seriously by LoonieMiami · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only did they know....they trained him! Aren't we great?

  4. Design or not... by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Design or not, it should have been read... and probably was.

    What should have the government done? Put the whole country under martial law? Shut down all commerical businesses and transportation and unroll millions of miles of razor wire?

    It was a lose-lose situation. Too bad they didn't replace the 85 year old baggage scanners earler. :(

    1. Re:Design or not... by hugzz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Too bad they didn't replace the 85 year old baggage scanners earler. :(

      i may be wrong, but i'm pretty sure box cutters were perfectly legal on planes at the time. changing the baggage scanners wouldn't have made a difference

    2. Re:Design or not... by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe they should have rounded up the known Al Qaeda members in the US (at least two of the hijackers were known by the governement to be associated with Al Qaeda and to have entered the US), beefed up security on the planes, kept pilots informed, and perhaps most importantly, sifted through FBI field reports to see if there were any leads (there were several).

      Now, if that's too difficult, Bush could have just asked his head of counter terrorism, Richard Clarke, if the threat was serious and what he ought to do about it. Even that, apparantly, was too much to ask from our boy wonder.

    3. Re:Design or not... by tbuckner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All the governemnt had to do is *tell the people the truth* and the hijack threat was taken care of. You cannot do a 9/11 hijack now, because the passengers will fight like wolverines. Tactically, it was a one-shot deal. Why does nobody see this????? You could still lose planes, but the cooperation the hijackers needed to let them reach the buildings depended on ignorance. Now every passenger knows they must fight. Why, oh why, does nobody see this obvious fact?

  5. News for nerds? by mOoZik · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I fail to see how this has anything to do with Slashdot. It's not tech, it's not Linux/F/OSS, and not anything else that I would consider Slashdot material. Since when has this place become a repository of whatever stupid "news" there happens to float around online?

    1. Re:News for nerds? by evanbd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      UI design is most definitely NfN. There are plenty of examples in engineering of bad UI design or information presentation costing lives; this is yet another. If you can't name at least 3 examples, then I truly hope you don't call yourself an engineer, computer programmer, or anything related.

    2. Re:News for nerds? by lunartik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Proper design makes things useful and informative. Design permeates everything. Bad design can actually undermine or even negate the information being presented, as Edward Tufte and other have demonstrated.

      When dealing with the presentation of information, clear design is essential. Those who write software, and especially those who work with UIs should always be mindful of it.

      That said, this guy prettied up a document and filled it with gibberish. He has some interesting ideas and some solid concepts, but his demonstration of it is lacking. A control number because he thinks it looks cool, etc. He does not present a solid case for why the information in the original document would have been acted on had it been presented in his way. In fact, the issues surrounding this document go more to the nature of intelligence information and the ability to assess it than to the typeface that was used. I know some people think this memo is a smoking gun of incompetence, but hindsight makes everyone a genius.

      In any case see Tutfe's examination of the way in which engineers tried to convince NASA not to launch the Challenger for a better deconstruction of improperly formatted information leading to a catastrophe.

    3. Re:News for nerds? by MarkRose · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's fashionable on Slashdot these days to criticize the US. I'd say more but I fear mod retaliation.

      Considering that a large portion, and probably the majority of Slashdotters are American, I wouldn't say it's a case of being fashionable. Instead, I'd argue it's a fight against fallacy and illogic. Much of the action of the US government is driven by fear, greed, and emotion, which runs counter to the typical geek way of analysing and responding to a situation. To us, the actions and methodologies of the US government are at best unreasonable and at worst insane. There is no fashion to flame the US here -- it's just the collective psyche of Slashdotters rejecting the counter-intuitive mannerisms of the powers that be.

      --
      Be relentless!
    4. Re:News for nerds? by obender · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Considering that a large portion, and probably the majority of Slashdotters are American

      I know this is offtopic but does anyone have any statistics about the geographical location of Slashdotters?

    5. Re:News for nerds? by IvyMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I fail to see how this has anything to do with Slashdot."

      It's fashionable on Slashdot these days to criticize the US.

      I don't understand this response at all. The original article examined a process, saw something that was suboptimal, and suggested an improvement. And that's considered criticizing the US?

      If we've reached the point where we are unable to improve our internal processes because doing so would admit an imperfection, then we are truly fucked.

    6. Re:News for nerds? by aixou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The ridiculous bias is one of the things I can't stand about Slashdot, and it is perpetuated by the [meta]moderation system. It's not that there aren't valid points among the anti-American sentiment, it's that the counter-points which are often equally valid and often more cogent get moderated into oblivion.

      Slashdot is NOT the place for any politically heated talk because it does not provide a proper forum for discussion. If you read over a thread after the dust has settled, all you see is the groupthink modded up, and anything opposing groupthink modded down to -1. It's interesting when you think about it: there is a form of mass censorship on Slashdot, in which people who speak out against the groupthink are silenced (in that they are modded down), and those who tote the party line cruise high at +5. The ironic part is that these heated discussions often center around complaints about the same sort of censorship by the government. Double-standards and hypocrisy abound.

    7. Re:News for nerds? by jschrod · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I have mod points, and instead of modding you flamebait (which your post is, IMNSHO), I react.

      You are wrong that only groupthink posts get +5 moderation. Wait half a day, and read at +5. Then you'll see a balanced reaction at most articles, with many critical posts modded up. Bad mods most often happen at the start of a comment phase; in the end most get quite OK.

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

  6. Threat Matrix?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All a threat matrix does is encourage people to create their own filtering systems.

    "Oh, that Bin Laden warning? Nah, I didn't take it seriously... I only read Threat Matrix 15 and above" ...which instantly puts all of the blame onto the poor sap who allocated it as a 9!

    Better that these kind of documents all look the same, and *force* people to read every word. Those that don't read every word aren't doing their jobs properly.

  7. Signal to noise. by Inominate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    SOMEWHERE in the bureaucracy is a document covering every imaginable possibility. That an event was predicted by a document in no way means anyone had any idea it was coming.

    Whenever anything happens, you can always find SOMEONE who predicted it, that doesn't mean they knew it was coming. It just makes it easy to pick the signal out of the noise when you know what you're looking for.

    1. Re:Signal to noise. by pascalpp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whatever, dude. This was not some random document that someone dug out of the garbage in order to prove some lefty point. This document was a Presidential Daily Briefing given to Bush a month prior to the attacks. Those briefings are very high profile and (one would hope) well-researched. The implications at best are that the administration committed a major oversight in not looking further into the possibilities of such an attack. At worst, there is an implication of willful ignorance or perhaps even complicity. Even I find this unlikely, but the possibility has yet to be fully investigated, and perhaps it never will.

      Regarding TFA, the design of the document is almost certainly a minor factor among the possible reasons it was ignored. (And yes, I've read my share of Tufte.) However, knowing this president, it might have held his attention longer if it had pretty illustrations of planes flying into buildings on the cover. And perhaps it should have been titled "My Pet Terrorist."

    2. Re:Signal to noise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This wasn't some document awash in a sea of documents. It was a Presidential Daily Briefing. It was about 4 times as long as a normal Presidential Daily Briefing. It was read to President George Bush on the day of its writing. It contains direct warning of the imminent threat of terrorist attacks directed by Bin Laden involving flying jet airplanes into large building on American soil. You can yell all you want about how SOMEONE SOMEWHERE knows what is up. We had a President more than a month before 9/11 being told point blank what is up and he ignored it. There's no excuse for that.

  8. He was 100% right. by blueberry(4*atan(1)) · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's why they had to attack him personally, because they couldn't factually disagree with anything in F911. He had Bush pegged.

  9. Re:Can someone please explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Actually, no, it doesn't.
    The photographic evidence contradicts the conspiracy, tin-foil hat story, but as always, people who try hard to believe in a conspiracy simply ignore all the evidence (photographic and otherwise) that doesn't fit their conspiracy theory.

    On a related note, the Bush administration would like to thank all the conspiracy nut jobs, as they do a great job in distracting from the real issue, which is, how could an adminstration fuck up so hard and how come that not one person has been held accountable for this gigantic fuck up?

  10. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    methinks this graphic designer puts waaaaay too much importance on his job. No offense Mr. Designer, but your little document is not going to change the world. If the people in charge of examining these documents cannot be bothered two read two fucking paragraphs then we have problems deeper than a cutsey layout.

  11. Typical designer megalomania by Angst+Badger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the goddamn stupidest thing I have ever seen on Slashdot, and that's saying a lot. The idea that memo design led to the 9/11 attacks doesn't deserve a response, except for possibly making armpit noises. Designers are notorious for emphasizing form over content and overrating their minimal importance in the scheme of things, but for fuck's sake, it would be nice to believe -- all evidence to the contrary -- that the National Security Advisor and the President of the United States don't need spiffy document layouts to underscore the seriousness of international terrorist organizations flying jumbo jets into buildings.

    If it's clear, simple design that's at issue, why not just have a crude drawing of a 747 flying into the White House with a 24-point header reading LOOK OUT, GEORGE!

    Fuck. I'm going to have to wash my fucking brain after being around this much stupidity.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    1. Re:Typical designer megalomania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh, where is it suggested that the memo design led to the attacks? If you weren't such an overreactive fuckwit and stopped for half a second to actually RTFA, you would see that the proposed new memo design

      (1) uses color to draw the eye and indicate level of alert. COLOR! It's useful for getting attention (in sentient beings, anyway)

      (2) contains a numeric threat level which indicates quantitatively the degree of alarm the alert merits

      (3) is laid out much better, with a nice executive summary in the boxes at the top to enable presidents and other simple minds to quickly grasp the rudiments of the problem: who / what / when / where

      (4) uses COLOR in the text to draw the eye to salient features of the alert.

      I think you're so totally missing the point here that you wouldn't know it if it bit you on the ass. Are you seriously suggesting that the design of the original memo couldn't be improved one iota for enhanced efficiency and quicker comprehension? Keep looking for that brain of yours; it needs a good rinse!

  12. Ignore motives, blame format by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This whole thing is a red herring. Read up on the PNAC and you'll learn that the Bush Administration is filled with people who have been DYING for a war of this kind you have with Iraq right now. Put aside your hatred of Michael Moore for a few minutes to figure out that OTHER PEOPLE have also shown links between the Bush's and the Bin Ladens and Saudi Royals, and you'll see why the Bush Administration wants to conveniently ignore those connections.

    It's all moot anyway. They wanted a war to legally embezzle $300 Billion from Americans in contracts, and wanted to fool everybody about it so they could get a second term in the white house. Mission Accomplished.

    It's now well-known that Hussein didn't have the weapons, was never a threat, and yet the war was started anyway. They've played it down pretending that they're learning about Hussein's lack of weapons at the same time we are, but that's not true. They knew it all along. Ask yourself about the sort of ethics somebody would need to have to do what they've done.

    Now ask yourself if those ethics are consistent with seeing a memo and disregarding it.

    Anybody who buys into the idea that the attacks were the result of poor design is a FOOL. The system may be imperfect, but it worked. The memo got to the top of the chain in time for Bush to do something about it. He did nothing.

  13. Death + destruction = politics by Morgaine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Americans, particularly their political leaders were less stupid, there would be fewer losses at WTC

    If political leaders everywhere including the wannabes were put in the fields to do hard labor, there would be no death and destruction in the world at all, except for natural causes.

    Sadly the plants would suffer.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
  14. Re:Why was it ignored? by pavera · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ok, so the president, his top aides, the military, the intelligence services, they all were complicit?

    For the neocons to "make" it happen, the president would have to have such a huge consolidation of power, across so many branches of the armed services, legislature, and his own office that it is laughable to even suggest it. If "the neocons" were actively participating in the murder of 3000+ americans, well, lets just say we'd have heard about it by now.

    The democrats certainly would have ben able to find a smoking gun in the 4 years since then. No conspiracy that large could be kept secret. People like you are the reason the country re-elected Bush.

    I am a republican but, no Bush apologist. I would have liked to have seen a decent democratic run last year. Unfortunately all I got from you guys was "Bush is the devil, he bought bin Laden the plane tickets!" insane, stupid, poorly reasoned arguments about how Iraq would be better off if we hadn't gone (they wouldn't sometimes sacrifice is required to improve something you Hollywood pussy Dems always seem to forget), about how the country is worse off because of Bush (I don't know about you but my salary is up 130% over the last 5 years, I own a house at 5.5%, I have health insurance which I didn't during the Clinton years, and I've been able to get completely out of debt except for my house.. so to me I think Bush has done a good job on the home front.).

    Anyway, I would have voted for Edwards if you guys had put him up instead of that cold fish Kerry. Edwards was a hard working, smart, thoughtful, well reasoned person who was a great example of achieving the american dream. Unfortunately you guys decided the spoiled, aristocrat who's never had to work a day in his life would be a better representation of your values. And now you bitch about it.... Idiots you picked him

  15. We knew since 1995 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My question is this: Some rich, powerful members of the Saud and bin Laden family, some Saudi agents, and some Pakistani agents must have had wind of the attack, and yet they feared the wrath of America so little that they never tried to stop it or tip off American intelligence. Why is that?

    Part of Operation Bojinka involved a similar attack in the US:

    A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack [the] said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

    There were plenty of warnings during the Bush and Clinton administrations. The warnings were not really ignored either. The FAA would issue warnings and airports would go to a heightened state of alert. (This happened during the summer of 2001, but the heightened state of alert was over before September.)

    The problem is that there was no support for anything that would actually make a difference.

    e.g., drastically tougher screenings, attacking Afghanistan, rounding up people with expired or suspicious visas, FBI investigations into foreign students in US flight schools...

    Politically, there was no way Clinton or Bush would have gone for any of those things. Clinton already caught enough shit from the Republicans + left-wingers after his cruise missile attack on a terrorist training camp.

  16. Re:Not quite right... by quarkscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After studying a number of video clips of Dubya making ad hoc quips/speeches (as opposed to the "canned" party line), I am inclined to agree with the submitter. The PDB's should have been redesigned to match the "My Pet Goat" format, including graphics.

  17. Talk about uninformed by nagora · · Score: 1, Insightful
    John O'Neil specifically told Bush that Bin Laden was going to attack the Twin Towers and he was told not to follow up on his information. He quit his job at the FBI - where he had been tracking OBL for years since the Kenya bomb and was know to be THE expert on OBL's activities - and became the head of security at the WTC. He took the job because he was 100% sure an attack was coming and three days into the job, that's where he died a fucking hero actually trying to make the world a better place for his fellow man while Bush sat paralysed in front of a bunch of school children and near pissed himself wondering if his keeness to protect his Saudi friends and their business interests was going to lead to his impeachment and maybe even, given the seriousness of effects of his corruption, execution for what at that point was thought to be 50000 cases of negligent manslaughter.

    Document design? DOCUMENT DESIGN! Catch goddamn trip on the clue train here, you people. Clinton told the secret services to go gently on Saudi Arabia, but Bush specifically told them to DROP all investigations that looked like they were going to finger anyone important. Like, for example, any members of that nice Bin Laden family that the Bushes have always got on so well with that they were allowed to leave the country while all other flights were grounded.

    Document design! Christ, talk about wanting to believe the lies.

    TWW2

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  18. Rehash of Edward R. Tufte's challeneger work? by fatfarm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Years ago Edward R. Tufte said the same thing about the space shuttle challenger failure. Tufte's big thing is clarity in visual representations of data and he spends more than a dozen pages in "Visual Explanations" ripping on the failure of the engineers to communicate in 13 faxed documents the evidence they had that launching in the cold temperatures forecast for the next day would likely result in failure of the rubber o-rings. Sounds very familiar.

  19. Re:Improve the design of EVERY intelligence brief by Koushiro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You miss the significance of the redesign: in the original memo, it is difficult to tell at a glance what the key details; of course, the title summarizes these, but only roughly. These design flaws are reduced (if not removed) by the revised design.

    Of course, we can't tell which memo will be important, and as a result we don't know which data should be paid attention to. The reason? Because the current design is inefficient, it is more difficult to spot and correlate trends and patterns. With this proposed design, it is easier to highlight potential threats, simply because its design is both clear and simple.

    --
    Karma: Oldschool
  20. Re:The spoon explanation. by Tassach · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Thank God we won't have Bush forever
    Three cheers for the Twenty-Second Amendment.

    Of course, that just means that instead of King George we'll have his idiot brother occupying the White House in 2008, with the same old crooks pulling the strings behind the scenes.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  21. Re:Same Clarke who attacked Bush in 2004? by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or would this be the same Richard Clarke who permitted Bin Laden family members to leave the US after 9/11?

    He approved the request, but who made it? Clarke has come clean, why did the rest of the administration cover it up?

    Would this be the same Richard Clarke who was head of US counterterrorism for eight years under Bill Clinton

    Yes, and you left out the foiled Millenium bombings. I'm not a big fan of Clarke's, but he's been right about the threat posed from bin Laden for a long time now.

    Or the same Richard Clarke who blamed Bill Clinton for not destroying terrorist training camps after the USS Cole bombing?

    Do you think Clarke was wrong here?

    If Clarke is right about anything, it's only because he's like a stopped clock.

    He seems to be a lot better bet than either Clinton or Bush when it comes to assessing terrorist threats, don't you agree?

  22. Re:Too much text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A simple one page graphic of a plane exploding, people on fire, politicians getting blamed, him getting re-elected...

    Stir up conflict and you create a perfect platform for political bandwagoning and patriotic mobs -- no conflict and focus would have been on internal policies...

  23. Yes we did by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But who would have known at the time he would turn on us? ( other then him )

    Sometimes you have to take risks to get things done.. Sometimes you win, other times you loose.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  24. Re:The spoon explanation. by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i guess you never have been to prison. your tounge is enouhg to sharped and harded a plastic spoon to the point of razer sharp. It will also be hard enough stich somehign several times. Ask any guard and they will tell you that it is a no-no to let a prisoner suck on a plastic spoon like a kid would do.

    It seems inocent enough but can cause alot of problems. Sharpened (metal) spoons are somethign that would definatly bypassed the security at the airport. It is also somethign that could have been planted on the plane without looking out of place.

    As for bold type and stuff the article mentions, It probably wouldn't be too goo of an idea. Once the president starts just looking for bold type instead of scanning the entire document, he is likley to miss things that some lower level official didn't deem important. Maybe we need to hire another cabinate member whos job is to read the reports entirely after the president and attempt to place the inteligence data into a more percice perspective and then verbaly express any concerns. This would double check the existing inteligence agencies opinion and ensure that at minimum, somethign is known byt the president.

  25. Re:Why was it ignored? by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "how the country is worse off because of Bush (I don't know about you but my salary is up 130% over the last 5 years, I own a house at 5.5%, I have health insurance which I didn't during the Clinton years, and I've been able to get completely out of debt except for my house.. so to me I think Bush has done a good job on the home front.).

    This is classis psychopathic libertarian reasoning. A psychopath is someone who only cares about themselves, and has no concern for anyone else. So things look great for you? Wonderful! who cares about anyone else?

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  26. Am I missing something? by tqbf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tufte's well-known critique of the Columbia presentation, and his famous critique of the Challenger data, centered on the use of visual evidence (idiotic charts, statistically incompetant graphs) and, in the former case, on the manner in which the medium (PowerPoint) butchered the message by making chopping it up into incomprehensible hamster pellets of information.

    The author here seems to be making the case that ugly typeface and a poor use of color are to blame; that if we just added a few horizontal rules, maybe put the PDB on nice stationary, it would have been more effective.

    When facing a dearth of actionable, analyzable data (like a chart with 4 data points), Tufte is likely as not to advocate doing exactly what the original PDB did, which is to stuff it into prose paragraphs.

    Tufte's design criticism work is serious, if perhaps overrated. This new one is just an advertisement for a web designer.

  27. Re:Not quite right... by hahiss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This would also have the disadvantage for the president that the paper trail showing his blatant disregard facts or prudence would be quickly and easily readable. He needs *more* obscurity, not less, to pull this off.

    I say: write 'em in ROT13.

    --
    "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken