I used to preach how the grammar of graphics was the single most important pivoting point for coding languages and dataviz.

I used to laud vega viz as the future. But now, after working so hard in the space of accessibility... I am far more interested in something else 1/7 https://twitter.com/palewire/status/1247247710282846208">https://twitter.com/palewire/...

What is wrong with a grammar focused on turning data into geometry as easily and expressively as possible?

That our true aim should be higher: to develop a grammar that improves how easily we turn data into *insights.*

Dataviz is just a proxy for insight.

2/7

A computational methodology to transform the symbolic into the geometric still fails to bridge the gap between the geometric and what it *means* in its context.

Building tools and solutions for accessible dataviz will show you how far we still have to go. 3/7

By focusing on a grammar that is so insular, we further encourage our authors and creators to become more efficient software developers.

But just the easy creation of geometry isn& #39;t enough.

We need software developers who strive to be authors, reporters, and creators. 4/7

This is a long winded way to say that if we really want to push for excellence:

Our languages (even down to the language of our code/libraries/packages) need to empower us to think of the reader, the learner, and the people whose lives our work is reaching.

This is not easy 5/7

Trying to describe the insights of a chart to a non-sighted person using programmatic methods lays bare the inadequacies of a grammar of graphics.

What is a "bar" or "line" really? And more importantly, why are they speaking? What is the language BEYOND the graphics?

6/7

I want our code not just to produce marks and axes on a cartesian plane... but help us create content that EXPLAINS what these even mean, what they accomplish.

Technologies shape epistemologies.

Graphics alone are meaningless.

I& #39;m ready for the grammar above graphics.

7/7