Posts tagged as:

eye candy

Stephen Few, Data Visualization, Eye Candy and the Pie

by Jorge

Stephen Few left a comment in my post “Is Data Visualization Useful? You’ll Have to Prove it“. We all have much to learn with Steve, so instead of leaving the discussion buried in an old post, I thought it would be interesting to make it more visible. Please read the comment then come here and join the discussion. Here is my answer.

Steve, sorry if I sound provocative, that’s not my intention. You are the leading expert in data visualization for business, you are doing a remarkable work with your books, with your blog, with your forum, with your patience to answer posts like mine. I have to be  thankful for that. And I do agree with 95% of what you write. But you don’t want to be surrounded by people who fully agree with you, do you?

The Effectiveness of Data Visualization

You say “the effectiveness of data visualization is well established by a large body of empirical evidence”. I want to believe that too. However in this study Jarvenpaa writes:

“Graphical charts are generally thought to be a superior reporting technique compared to more traditional tabular representations in organizational decision making. The experimental literature, however, demonstrates only partial support for this hypothesis.”

And J.-A. Mayer adds:

“This study refutes the general superiority of visual information in improving the decision quality (‘naive superiority hypothesis’). The choice and design of visual presentation is determined by information structure, decision environment, the decision-maker and the task decision. (…) The successful use of visual information depends substantially on its acceptance by the manager and the environment.”

What do these authors tell us? First, we cannot be 100% sure about the effectiveness of data visualization. Second, there are many other variables at play. And third, managers must accept it. This is a critical factor. Managers love impression management, and making a good impression using the dreaded “professional-looking charts” is the path of least resistance.

Data Visualization Success Stories

I have no doubts that you could share with us many success stories. When I write about an “admission of impotence” I am not questioning your ability to create/lead/mentor successful data visualization projects. But if you want to use those projects to inspire the average person I think you’ll fail most of the time, unfortunately.

Let me tell you how the layman looks like in my part of the world. He makes charts like this:

He believes that a 3D pie chart “looks more precise” and he doesn’t know that Excel chart defaults can be changed (more advanced laymen are able to switch to more “impactful” colors like reds, yellows and bright greens). In my part of the world, a layman doesn’t even know what “data visualization” is about (and they don’t even care). (Here are some more profiles.)

If you are preaching to the choir your conversion rate may be high. But the layman is not easily impressed. You must convert one at a time, and that’s something many of us can’t afford. Can you? He’ll keep making those pie charts because that’s what his manager requires him to do, he doesn’t know better, he’s lazy or you fail to convince him of a causality effect between better charts and better results.

The Layman Must Like Your Charts

In a business environment, charts don’t have to be memorable, only results do. But if you want to change behaviors, your audience must like the new behavior and accept the unavoidable pain. Likable charts help conversion.

You say “I do not discount people’s emotions”. I don’t see it, I’m sorry. The way I see it, you sacrifice everything to the altar of “chart effectiveness”. I don’t find a single one of your charts where the use of color is not purely functional. You say “you should support your claim with concrete examples”. I do have lots of examples: all your charts!

Let me reemphasized this: I agree with you. Chart effectiveness is what we should aim at. But I’m part of the choir. I’m not the layman. I don’t use pie charts.

Pie Charts Again

Unlike most people, I don’t think pie chart addiction is a disease. It is a symptom of a much more serious problem: low numeracy and poor data management skills. Address this problem and pie charts will virtually disappear.

How do you address this problem? “I don’t use pie charts, and I strongly recommend that you abandon them as well.” Researchers like Ian Spence and Stephen Kosslyn don’t think pie charts are as bad as you paint them. Even if they are, it’s very hard to talk people out of an addiction with purely rational arguments.

Perhaps this is my European soul speaking, but I do prefer a gradual approach (“this is acceptable, for the time being”) whereby people (hopefully) start to develop a sensibility to the perceptual issues.

By the way, how come we keep telling people that charts are about trends and patterns, not about the precise figures and then we argue that pie charts are bad because we can’t tell the difference between a 13% slice and a 14% slice? It doesn’t make sense (I’m exaggerating).

We must find more compelling arguments. I don’t like pie charts just because they are a waste of space (low data density) and can only answer very basic questions, better answered using a table. These arguments are good enough for me. I don’t care if we humans are bad at calculating areas and angles. That’s an academic argument that is irrelevant in the real world (I’m being provocative now…).

To Sum Up

You have  a very consistent approach to data visualization and you practice what you preach. You believe that you can convince people using rational arguments.

Mine is a much more comfortable place. I know that eye-candy is a can of worms that shouldn’t be opened. I know that we should protect the layman from himself. I know that simple rules with no exceptions work better than complex rules no one bothers to learn or understand.

But I like the gray areas. I like to protect the poor and the oppressed pies and I try to find their small role in the world of data visualization. The same with eye-candy. The same with emotions. The right amount can get your foot in the door. What is “the right amount”? I don’t know. I’m still searching.

{ 9 comments }

Charts Are for Sissies (Grumpy Old Man’s Guide to Charts)

by Jorge

Making a chart is so simple that even a chimpanzee can be trained to do it – press F11 and get the banana (that would explain the poor quality of many business charts and presentations – and the raising banana consumption).

To prove that they are better than chimpanzees at making charts, humans invented the eye-candy and its epitome, the glossy 3D pie. Some well-known data visualization experts believe they are poor and useless, nothing more than lipstick (on a pig?).

A don’t agree. A think they are rich and very informative: there is no better chart to tell us that the author hasn’t the slightest idea of what to do with the data. (I am sure there is a strong inverse correlation between 3D pie charts and scatter plots. The more you love one, the more you hate the other.)

This is not just another rant about 3D pie charts. It’s about charts in general, even the good ones. If your only data analysis / communication strategy is to pollute the air with yet another chart then you are fully immersed in the sissy world, and lipstick is all over the place. Charts can help reduce information overload, but chart overload is not better.

A chart is just one of several tools you can use to make sense of your data. You need text, and plain figures, and statistical measures, and tables and yes, some charts. The best results come from the right blend of all those tools.

How do you know if you are a sissy (chart-wise)? Here is a simple clue: if you know how to use and interpret a box-and-whisker plot then you’re on the right track (extra points if you can do it in Excel). If not, do yourself a favor and find a good entry-level statistics manual.

{ 4 comments }

Can Edward Tufte Do Business Charts?

by Jorge

1. Tufte, the Father of Eye-Candy Charts

Tufte’s The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, published in 1983, is probably the most influential book in the history of data visualization, and it is likely to remain so for some more time.

In his book, Tufte outlines for the first time a consistent theory of how a chart object should look like and why it should look like that. His guidelines are easy to understand and very quotable, not buried under six feet of abstractions. Think of well-known concepts like “data-ink ratio”, “data-density” or “chartjunk”: they all come from The Visual Display…

However, too often these principles are taken as self-evident, somehow “discovered”, not invented. A fundamental clarification must be made: these are aesthetic principles that Tufte transposes (brilliantly) from Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s minimalism to the field of data visualization. These are not universal principles backed up by scientific evidence. Some studies find them helpful, some studies say they are irrelevant, but their effectiveness is hard to measure and they should not be taken as indisputable laws (I call this the “what-would-tufte-say syndrome“).

Unlike other authors (Jacques Bertin, Tukey, William Cleveland), Tufte recognizes that only an aesthetic framework can structure the image (color management, the role of non-data objects, how to emphasize/de-emphasize elements in a chart…). This is clearly the realm of graphic design.

Using aesthetics to improve function is probably the major contribution of Edward Tufte to the display of quantitative information. Unfortunately, this idea that a chart can be an aesthetically pleasing object (“Beautiful Evidence”, the title of his latest book, says it all) went astray and gave birth to a whole industry of eye-candy visualization tools.

From Tufte’s positivist point of view, a chart is defined by how well it makes a pattern stand out. It may be boring but, if that is the case, then “you’ve got the wrong numbers”. His faith in human rationality is both charming and frightening…

2. Patterns, patterns, patterns. And something else.

There are so many misconceptions  to discuss about data visualization that we often forget to emphasize this simple true: data visualization is about pattern discovery, finding useful, actionable visual patterns hidden in the data and make them stand out. Let me repeat: it’s all about visual patterns.

Tufte would agree, but here is the fun part: there is nothing wrong with using 3D effects, textures, and all the decoration in the world. Use them! It is your good taste against Tufte’s. You don’t have to like minimalism. Add color, clipart, anything that you think can engage your audience.

I am not kidding. It’s you, not Tufte, who defines your aesthetic program. Almost anything goes. But, whatever you do:

  • Don’t design technically incorrect charts: do not distort a circle, do not use more than one series in a pie chart, do not make an object variate in two dimensions when you are using a single series, etc. Just common sense, really. And, of course, if you want to break the rules, know them first.
  • Don’t hide the patterns: find the patterns and make them visible. Remove everything except the series themselves. Now start embellishing your chart. But remember: every little thing you add multiplies the clutter and makes the patterns harder to see. You’ll have to find that point where the impact of eye-catching decoration on pattern visualization goes beyond an acceptable threshold.

Please note that minimalism was not randomly chosen. Not only it makes pattern discovery much simpler but also creates a framework to evaluate what belongs to the chart and what doesn’t belong. You can reject it, but if you don’t have a different framework you must decide on an ad hoc basis. Unless you are an accomplished graphic designer (and even then), a minimalist approach is a good start and it should help you to find your own style.

3. Emotions, Emotions, Emotions

Let’s face it: you don’t have much choice. If you do not want to sacrifice patterns, the amount of of decoration that you can actually use is very limited.

So, what do you do with that limited amount of decoration? Essentially you’ll try to create the right emotional response. This is not what you would expect from a over-positivist chart that you end up with by choosing the minimalist path.

Refusing to acknowledge the role of emotions in data visualization is a bizarre thing, considering that you can’t remove aesthetics from the equation, and we all have an emotional sense of Beauty. What many hardcore Tufte fans may consider chartjunk can actually keep the audience from turning the page.

4. Edward Tufte and Excel

Throughout his books, Tufte often refers to the higher resolution of paper, and how it outperforms the current screen resolutions. His sparklines are meant to be printed, because only then the fine details can be observed.

In Edward Tufte’s vision, each chart is unique, and deserves the attention of a work of art. He despises PowerPoint and hardly mentions Excel. His charting tool is Adobe Illustrator, where he is in full control of each small detail. He admonishes against patronizing the readers, but he never really discusses the audience as something that should be taken into account when designing a chart.

5. Knowledge Is Built by the User

matrixpermutator

Much as changed in the last 27 years and you may think that Tufte’s The Visual Display… emphasizes the use of paper just because the extraordinary changes in information technology were still in their infancy back in 1983.

Thing is, that’s not the reason. The real reason is that Tufte always thought of a chart as a final product to be printed and handed to the audience, not something that could be manipulated by the audience.

There is a striking difference between Edward Tufte and Jacques Bertin. Bertin’s “reorderable matrix” is dynamic by definition, and and one of my preferred quotes summarizes perfectly his views:

“It is the internal mobility of the image which characterizes modern graphics. A graphic is no longer ‘drawn’ once and for all; it is ‘constructed’ and reconstructed (manipulated) until all the relationships which lie within it have been perceived.”

This was written in 1967, long before the PC was even imagined. Edward Tufte wants to design an efficient but elegant chart, Bertin wants to solve a business problem. There is no contradiction, one is not better than the other. They just serve different masters. (The image above is from Bertin’s Graphic Semiology and shows how a “dynamic chart” looked in 1967…)

Forty years have passed, but a vast majority of data users have no access to dynamic charts, either because they don’t have access to the right charting tools or they are unable to create those charts using their current tools (it is not that easy for a beginner to create a dynamic chart in Excel).

6. The Life Span of a Business Chart

In his essay “The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint” Edward Tufte argues that the tool itself is intrinsically flawed. I agree with him. Tools are not neutral. They can be forced to do things against their will, but that’s never easy. You can create a dynamic chart in Excel, but it is difficult. You can even force Excel to work like Tableau, but that’s like reinventing the wheel. You can create good chart in Crystal Xcelsius, but that’s against its nature.

The point is, you can apply Edward Tufte’s principles by the book, but that means spending hours perfecting a chart in Illustrator and then printing it. I’d love to. Unfortunately, that’s not exactly how things work in a business environment. The life span of a business chart is short and the time to create it, even shorter. We cannot use Illustrator to create business charts.

7. Take-Away Points

Break away from Edward Tufte, but make sure you know why. Add emotion to your charts (rationally). Decide if the level of eye-candy your audience needs goes beyond what you are willing to add. Other things been equal, an interactive chart should need less eye-candy than a static one. Above all, show the patterns (but make sure your audience wants to see them).

{ 20 comments }