Stephen Few’s paper on the chartjunk debate comes to the conclusion that some embellishment is probably good to have depending on the situation and provided the embellishment is not distacting or excessive. This is a solid compromise between the two sides of the debate. One side argues that charts should add flair to make them more interesting and engaging for their audience, while the other argues against any embellishment at all, advocating the use of the minimal amount of ink required to clearly convey the information presented.

The bulk of the Few’s discussion of the debate centers around a study on the embellishment of charts. The study seems to support embellished graphs on the surface and is commonly used to defend the arguments of the embellishment camp. However, there are some significant flaws in the study and misinterpretations of its conclusions. One flaw is its low sample size. This jumped out at me the moment I first read “twenty participants”. I think this is far too low a sample size to make any strong conclusion, especially when it appears the test would be easily adapted to more test subjects. Another problem was that the embellished charts were not excessively embellished and may not have been consider true “chartjunk” by some. Furthermore, the the unembellished charts were poorly designed and used illustration schemes that reduced their ease of understanding.

I thought the study’s distinction between comprehension and recall was interesting and important. I hadn’t thought of it before, but a graph that’s clearly understood but immediately forgotten is in some ways worse that one that’s hard to understand. In a situation where a designer is using a graph to make a point or persuade someone of something, a memorable embellished graph is important. In a context like a scientific paper, emphasis should be put on clarity since the chart’s purpose to show information without bias, not convince the reader of a certain conclusion.

It was certainly interesting to see how this study fits into the chartjunk debate. It is apparently used quite often but does not stand up to rigorous standards.