Dan Roam has a new book coming out this November and it became available for pre-order on Amazon this week.

Details about the new book are scarce. You can see a little about the cast of characters in Dan’s blog post.

I feel confident in pointing you at this book though because of the superlative-ness of Dan’s previous books, The Back of the Napkin, and Unfolding the Napkin: The Hands-On Method for Solving Complex Problems with Simple Pictures. I recommend both to anyone who communicates, whether or not you already do so with pictures.

In visual communication, one of the first concepts to come to terms with is the use of symbols. Scott McCloud in his book, Understanding Comics, gives one of the best explanations of “visual iconography” that I’ve yet to encounter. (While it’s primary focus is on comics, Understanding Comics is actually more about visual, pictorial communication and I recommend it to anyone who communicates through pictures, uses PowerPoint, etc.)

Pictures versus Symbols

The difference between a picture and a symbol is that a picture shows what actually is, while a symbol has stripped the image down to it’s bare minimum. In essence, the symbol conveys the same meaning as the picture, the idea, but all the other details have been eliminated. It’s the difference between the two images below.

[Image credits: picture - thefixer, symbol - thenounproject.com]

DC Metro Map

Another example of this concept I ran across is here. Take a minute to open that link and study the two maps of the DC Metro System. The one on the right is a geographically correct map showing where each of the Metro lines actually go. The other is the simplified (and geographically inaccurate) map of the same system that hangs in every Metro station in DC. Why use such an inaccurate map as the official map? Because the Metro system designers wisely realized that their passengers did not need to know exactly where they were going. They only needed to understand the idea of what was going on. The needed to know which train to take to get to their desired stop and the simplified map is much easier to understand and use for that purpose. So by showing them something technically inaccurate, they got the idea across much more efficiently and simply.

The Nashville Interstate Sign System

A few weeks ago, I went to a Pecha Kucha Night in Nashville. One of the speakers that night spoke on a design he came up with for improving the interstate signage in and around Nashville (which is abysmal at present). His idea is pretty ingenious in my mind and was one of my favorite talks that evening. It involves sacrificing complete accuracy (which this system currently provides) in favor of the idea (which would be much easier to use). See which one seems better to you. You can watch the whole talk below (which only takes 6:40 seconds since it’s a Pecha Kucha).

My point is that often when presenting information we can sometimes strive to be completely accurate, which is good, except when it gets in the way of conveying our message. Sometimes it’s better to sacrifice a few details in order to help your audience get the most important idea. If you’re a detail-oriented person (you know who you are), it would probably be a good idea to think a bit about just how much detail is needed to get your audience to the place you want them to go.

P.S. – The title isn’t a mis-type. It’s actually a reference to one my father’s sayings that he uses all the time to describe overly-detail-oriented people. In describing a person like that he says, “You’ve heard of someone who can’t see the forrest for the trees? Well he can’t see the tree for the leaves.”