Here's another similar example where the flow is moving through a hierarchy (most general > most specific). Possible improvements - there's no overall direction, with it going from the middle out - the lines could have directional information without adding noise by being very small subtle dotted chevrons (like >) instead of dots, so you could start anywhere and see where to go next without those direction cues distracting. The whole is complex but each part is clear. It's very clear what each element is, using clear-but-subtle hightlighting and variation that adds minimal noise. Using only black and white, it makes a complex diagram usable with a clear hierarchy between elements: Also think of figure-ground: the data should be the thing that is attended to in the foreground, the visual cues showing flow and category should be the background that people are aware of but not distracted by.įirst example, a typography decision flowchart poster (I'm sure some people will disagree with the content.). Think of the signal-to-noise ratio (sometimes called the data-ink ratio in the context of information graphics): the connections are visual guides, not data, so make them as subtle as possible without making them less easy to follow. ![]() Make the flow and connectivity as much of a background element as possible. ![]() Make the differences between types of element clear and simple with a clear hierarchy between them. ![]() So, complex flow diagrams and network diagrams with an emphasis on direction/flow and categories of node/element. But that's the really hard way to go, only try that if you have to. If you can figure out how to adapt some of these into something user-friendly and directional, you could be on to a winner. If nothing suggested below based on node links works - if the thing in question is just too complex - here's an article by a respected data visualisation academic on some alternatives to the "node-link" concept as a base for network maps that data visualisation researchers have come up with. That in turn is a type of node-link network diagram, with added directionality: essentially, nodes, which can have categories, and connections, which can have direction.Īnything based on node links can turn into a messy 'hairball' when the complexity of what it's trying to represent increases. It's a type of flow chart / process diagram with a focus on categories of element / node. Then, we'll look at some examples of designs that deal with similar challenges. I can't think of any especially good software architecture diagrams that haven't had the data they show heavily simplified and cut down, but we can find some relevant stuff by first breaking down what a software architecture diagram is. The one (non-software) example I have found ( ) suffers (perhaps deliberately to demonstrate complexity) from a lot of the same problems as the above.Īre there any examples out there of aesthetically pleasing software architecture diagrams, or at least infographics which show complex process flows which would be useful inspiration? ![]() The few that contain arrows to depict some kind of flow tend to be much simpler than my needs. I've trawled through hundreds of infographics to find inspiration but most tend to consist of discrete visual elements related only by the overall concept and gestalt principles. Some examples of software architecture diagrams which demonstrate this: Whilst these diagrams convey the relevant information, they often leave much to be desired from the perspective of aesthetics. Part of the Construction and Design Manuals series, Architectural Diagrams 2 is a practical guide for those working in creative disciplines: over 312 pages it covers the fields of architecture, interior design, and installation, with both images and quotes from carefully selected contemporary practitioners.I spend a fair amount of time drawing diagrams of software architecture which usually consist of variations on boxes connected with arrows. How is the diagram a place where architecture and philosophy meet? In what ways can we critically examine their analogue and digital forms? Is the history of the diagram over? Citing the ideas of, among others, Peter Eisenman and Gilles Deleuze the philosopher Lidia Gasperoni investigates diagrammatic practices in architectural design in her absorbing introductory essay. Theirtheoretical background is, however, not quite so well known.Īlongside offering inspiring examples of these multifaceted visualisations, this volume explores some of the associated history and theory. Architects use diagrams every day – as sketches they are convenient tools for quickly demonstrating a point, as worked through representations they present complex ideas simply and attractively forclients, and as graphics they cross languagebarriers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |