Many Eyes on data
Recently I posted a link to Swivel, a Web site that lets users share, analyze and comment on data. For whatever reason, I never gave Swivel a serious try. Then I read about Many Eyes, a similar site by visualization researchers at IBM that went public this month. One of the makers of Many Eyes helped create the NameVoyager, a fabulous tool for exploring how preferences for names have changed over time. I immediately felt the urge to play with Many Eyes. Whereas Swivel's home page displays a series of uninspiring bar charts, Many Eyes offers a rich variety: not just bar and line charts, but also bubble charts, histograms, network diagrams, treemaps, U.S. and world maps and more. It's exceptionally easy to feed data to Many Eyes: You just cut and paste from an Excel spreadsheet into a Web form, and the site recognizes the format and immediately lets you analyze it visually. Swivel, meanwhile, takes you through the familiar, laborious process of choosing a file from your hard drive (comma-separated values only, please, no Excel!) and stepping through a series of screens. It's easier to create a chart with Many Eyes than it is with Excel itself or other desktop chart tools I've used. Especially impressive is the way you can easily manipulate charts on the fly -- selecting categories of data, and rearranging how the data is displayed on the screen to understand it in new ways. You can grab anyone else's data and manipulate it, subscribe to comments on any charts and post charts to a blog. You can do that with Swivel, too, and Swivel attempts to automatically find correlations between different data sets, something Many Eyes doesn't attempt. Swivel has many good qualities, but at this stage I don't find it as compelling as Many Eyes. Using Many Eyes was -- dare I say it? -- fun.
P.S. You can read about how the Many Eyes creators compare themselves to Swivel on the O'Reilly Radar blog.
P.S.S. As the CEO of Swivel points out in the comments, it is possible to cut and paste data into Swivel, so shame on me for getting that wrong.


