Chartjunk Debate

Chartjunk Debate

My main takeaway from this reading is that comparing embellished graphs to simple charts (rid of “chartjunk”) is like comparing apples to oranges. Stephen Few poses the notion that Edward Tufte may have been a bit presumptious about his certain idealogy that “chartjunk” is an inefficient way to visualize quantitative data. Instead, Few argues that Nigel Holmes’ use of embellished graphs is just as useful as Tufte’s simple graphs. Few also presents a study (that has noticeable biases) which examined how 20 University Students interpreted both embellished and simple graphs. I appreciate that Tufte noted the apparent flaws in this study–including that all of the embellished graphs were those of Nigel Holmes. In my opinion, I must say that I agree with Few’s notion that both Tufte and Holmes make noteworthy points. Yet, if I had to choose a preference for how I’d like to receive quantitave data I would prefer embellished graphs.