If you’ve heard of Edward Tufte, you probably know about his strong opposition to visual embellishment in charts. He refers to it as “chart junk” and argues that all ink not used to present data should be removed. No doubt he has some beautiful examples of this, but to use a baseball analogy, I see this as advice to “just make contact”. It’s good general advice, but how many bunts, foul offs and base hits do you remember? Swinging for the fences with embellishment can cause you to strike out easier, but you also have a chance to knock it out of the park.
A recent study (via infosthetics) confirms this:
Guidelines for designing information charts often state that the presentation should reduce ‘chart junk’ - visual embellishments that are not essential to understanding the data. In contrast, some popular chart designers wrap the presented data in detailed and elaborate imagery, raising the questions of whether this imagery is really as detrimental to understanding as has been proposed, and whether the visual embellishment may have other benefits. To investigate these issues, we conducted an experiment that compared embellished charts with plain ones, and measured both interpretation accuracy and long-term recall. We found that people’s accuracy in describing the embellished charts was no worse than for plain charts, and that their recall after a two-to-three-week gap was significantly better. Although we are cautious about recommending that all charts be produced in this style, our results question some of the premises of the minimalist approach to chart design.
The study compares embellished data by Nigel Holmes with minimal versions of the same data sets. Which of these are you more likely to recall a week from now:
I do have some issues with the graphic on the left. The relationship between time and the price of diamonds is a bit too disconnected for my taste; showing the year right next to each data point might help. There is also false data shown in the dip between 1978 and 79 since the artist decided a flat rump doesn’t work as well with this metaphor. Besides these issues, the graph-as-fishnet is very clever and the pose makes the data memorable.
There is some middle ground that emphasizes and stays true to the data while attracting attention. It’s a small target, but it’s worth aiming for. When creating an information graphic, it might be best to keep the devil on one shoulder, and a little Edward Tufte on the other.
Another graphic for GOOD. The data set didn’t account for important factors like people crossing state lines to end a pregnancy, so in that respect I have some reservations about this graphic.
For GOOD Magazine. This was featured in their latest print issue as well.
Graphic for Pomp & Circumstance.
Poster 4 of 4 for the Habitat’s wing night.
Poster 3 of 4 for the Habitat.
Poster 2 of 4 for the Habitat.
1 of 4 posters for the Habitat’s wing night. An almanac for chickens, by chickens.
Yes, it’s another political chart. A B/W version can be found in Pomp & Circumstance magazine.
A very long, very subjective chart. If there are any corrections/suggestions, please let me know.
Election countdown: 1
