2 points and another question

1. The shuttle disaster explanation is fascinating to me. Better visuals very likely would have assisted in persuading the commanders to delay or scrap the launch. But it also seems that since these are some of the most intelligent people in the country, hard facts might have been enough. The visuals used were very poor and some shown in the article appear as simple photo copies of data logs. Tufte's article shows the importance of risk communication skills, and why it has become a specialized field. Tufte stresses the corporate and political pressures that can affect sound decision making even in multi-billion dollar projects. NASA had to wake up and realize that bad communication in the management offices planning the launch could end lives as easily as poor communication from ground control during and after the launch. .

2. Kostlenick and Roberts state that arrangement, emphasis, clarity, tone, conciseness and ethos are key strategies of visual design. They are interrelated, and failing to address even one of them could dampen the effective qualities of the work. Just as written and spoken word rhetorical challenges require these same type of strategies, visuals are not to be taken lightly and perfecting any significant visual design is usually a tedious process. The effort applied is a reflection of the designers intelligence and their serious approach to the audience's needs.

Question: It seems the two articles taken together are asking us to realize the potential persuasive benefits of a solid, concise and well thought out visual rhetorical undertaking. Also, effective and persuasive visuals can save lives in the case of crisis and risk communication. What would be a good example of a scenario today in which poor visuals could lead to a national tragedy?