Envisioning Information + Chartjunk Commentaries
Envisioning Information: Color and Information The chapter described a coloring system to produce uniform and coherent images that were pleasing to the eye and discusses how color can add meaning to a visualization. It laid out a method for pairing colors, such as only placing bright colors in small amounts beside neutrals. Imhof’s four rules for designing cartographic maps are the basis of this somewhat rigid though generally effective set of procedures.
Since humans can distinguish between one million colors when placed side by side, there are many different variations of color schemes that can be used on a value scale. Tufts emphasizes many different types of information that can benefit from color, including maps, webpages, and, most interestingly to me, proofs. I often find that math is presented in a restrictive and constrained way, so I appreciated the example of Euclid’s proofs as a slight alternative to the ones we typically see.
Later on, the text discusses the drawbacks of color coding, namely that it affected by what surrounds it and its meaning can change with context. One way around these issues is to include redundant non color based information in diagram. Ultimately, though color does add to a visualization, I don’t think it’s easy to have a complicated image without any other information.
The Chartjunk Debate This article focuses on a debate between minimalists and embellishers started by Edward Tufte when he criticized a graphic created by Nigel Holmes. After Tufte published this critique, a debate that essentially centered on what type of graphics were most effective began. The arguments focus on the benefits of what Tufte calls chartjunk, a loosely defined term describing the inclusion of unnecessary and confusing information for artistic sake.
According to the author, a minimalist, more visually interesting graphics are specifically suited for portraying simple messages. Thus they have a different purpose than simple graphics. Additionally, Tufte’s position is too extreme, ignoring the usefulness of redundant information in improving understanding and recall by supporting the basic idea in charts.
Supporters of including chartjunk point to a study that was done to measure the effects of charjunk on comprehension and recall. The majority of this article was a takedown of this study. Its design is not generalizable but allows for causal inference. However, the graphics used in the study were highly flawed. The minimalist charts were far more simplistic and plain than what Tufte intended when he talked about avoiding chartjunk. Furthermore, the only embellished charts were created by Holmes. This lack of diverse and representative graphics severely restricted the reach of the study.
I agree that chartjunk can be useful, depending on the context. It can clarify a message and does increase recall, which is useful in cases such as popular journalism. Chartjunk that takes away from the message of a graphic isn’t worth including though. On the whole, I think it would be best to find a happy medium between minimalism and embellishment, and to adapt the chart to the audience.