Why NOT reason more visually?

A kind Scandinavian Archicad-expert posted a message on my blog:

 Well, look at what the Norwegian government building agency (Norway’s largest building owner)
is specifying:
http://www.buildingsmart.no/sites/default/files/statsbyggbimmanual1-2publicbeta1.pdf

.. and I read through it obligingly – adamant to suspend my cynicism and find the really useful in the document.

And it IS a useful document – see for yourself.

The Nordic countries have long been at the forefront at anything BIM.

But then, I love to read long complicated books and still I am not that good with long textual documents.

In fact some internal self-preservation mechanism tends to kick in when I confront my mind with anything that looks like a set of rules (or even a guide or manual) and helpfully takes my interest to something else.

As I read through the wise document of the large Norwegian building owner an old email-viral flashes up.

Can’t really recall it in detail but lists numerous witty sentences, all starting with a “why”.

So I go and search and find ‘a’ why list and muse over it for a while...

Then I return to the document I rudely abandoned previously and make the connection...

My interest in the “why”s is simple –I’ve been wondering subconsciously, why aren’t documents that are supposed to guide processes like designing-documenting buildings not more pictorial even animated?

Why NOT reason with more graphics, visually?

Some of the “Why”s I like:

Why are apartments so close together?

Why is abbreviation such a long word?

Why do we call something sent by car a shipment and something sent by
ship a cargo?
Why do we call them restrooms when no one goes there to rest?

Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?