As a writer I have (unsurprisingly) something of a bias towards the written word. I hate getting information from videos because they are so slow at putting stuff across - when I've had to do an online course with videos, I always use the transcript instead if available and get through it in half the time. I'm just not very visually oriented. But that said, I can of course see the benefit of graphics as a way of putting across a piece of information where words can be clumsy. When I help students and academics with their papers I always ask them to ensure that a figure, or diagram or chart adds something to the text. They should never be there simply because they feel they need one. However, when it comes to packaging it seems that graphic designers sometimes rule the roost and the result can be a mangling of the message. Take the graphic above. We've got two boxes - one red with a slash through it. That's obviously the 'don't do this' box. And the other is ...
When researching my book Brainjacking on the science of human use of story to inform, influence and manipulate, I came across an intriguing article in The Times . 'AI will read your mind sooner than you think' blared the headline on Rhys Blakely's piece. He describes the interpretation of signals from electrodes in the brain, processed by AI to help a disabled person be more independent, which is fascinating. But we are then told 'But what about the rest of us? Would you allow a computer direct access to your thoughts? The question isn't as far fetched as it once was.' Hype or accurate observation? Blakely describes an experiment at UC Berkeley where subjects were played music - with the help of AI it was possible for listeners to identify the music from processed brain signals, and even pick out some of the words. I looked into the detail of this experiment for the book. Firstly, given that introduction, you might think this involved detecting your brain activ...