Slashdot Mirror
The Visual Display of Quantitative Information
Tufte begins with the different kinds of informational graphics (maps, time-series, narratives, and relational graphics), describing their origins and evolution and presenting examples of excellence in their design. Many of these are fascinating in their own right -- two that I particularly appreciated were Minard's depiction of Napoleon's disastrous retreat from Moscow and an 11th century map of China.
"For many people the first word that comes to mind when they think about statistical charts is 'lie.'" Tufte gives examples of different kinds of deceit in graphics, along with some principles for maintaining graphical integrity. He goes on to consider the reasons for the poor quality of many informational graphics: one is the relegation of their design to those with art training but without an understanding of either the substance of the material or of quantitative (statistical) methods.
Part two begins by introducing some terminology and theory for describing graphics. The principle "Above all else show the data" is formalised as maximization of the data-ink ratio, and illustrated with some "before and after" examples of erasure of redundant or non-data-ink. Tufte excoriates various kinds of "chartjunk": moire vibration (the disconcerting effect caused by repeating patterns), the overuse of grids, and the "ducks" created when the design takes precedence over everything else.
Tufte gives specific suggestions for the design of box plots, bar charts, and scattergraphs. He argues for the use of multifunctioning graphical elements -- building data measures or grids out of the data itself, for example, by using labels that also show the end points of the data ranges. And he looks at ways of maximizing data density (within reason) and using "small multiples," or repeated smaller graphics. A final chapter steps back to consider the balance between text, text-tables, tables, semi-graphics, and graphics -- "Given their low data-density and failure to order numbers along a visual dimension, pie charts should never be used" -- and to touch on the aesthetics of proportion and scale.
All of this is liberally illustrated with examples, drawn from across the natural and social sciences. Despite the space devoted to these, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information packs a lot in, avoiding repetition or verbosity. Tufte's own tables and graphs are appropriately effective and the volume as a whole is elegantly put together: though it's more than that, it could be appreciated simply as a work of art. Tufte also finds room to survey publication practices across a select sample of international newspapers and journals, comparing the data density of graphics and the proportion of relational graphics (involving at least two variables that aren't temporal or spatial).
Most obviously, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information should be read by those involved in writing, editing, or designing documents or displays that contain statistical graphics -- from professional editors, technical writers, academics, and journalists right down to high school students. But others may appreciate it too: it has changed the way I look at informational graphics.
Danny has written over 700 book reviews. You can purchase The Visual Display of Quantitative Information from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the (recently updated) book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Referral Link: Amazon has this book for $12 more than bn
Even Amazon's used book marketplace is more expensive than bn.
I've mostly read this and Tufte's two other books, which a colleague kindly brought into work. They are all three a joy to read or just look at.
--
Marc A. Lepage
Software Developer
As a consultant, I have to be very careful when choosing seminars/courses to attend. One, because they cost money, and two, because I don't get to bill that day(s), which even costs me more money.
I will never regret attending Tufte's course. I learned more about web design, the evils of Power Point (see his article in a recent Wired) and other topics related to display of information, than I ever imagined possible. His course isn't for academics. If you ever give briefings where you have to display pie charts or bar graphs, you could learn things from his course. Highly recommended.
I've used this book for years as my first point of reference when I have 'quantitive information' to display.
Every engineer should have one to hand to keep themselves safe from the brain warping effects of powerpoint.
Evil people are out to get you.
info from the author and publisher on what's different since the 1st edition is here.
Check out www.edwardtufte.com for more information about Tufte's work. The story of how he had to publish his own books to get them looking exactly how he wanted (important when your thesis is about ideal visual display!) is very interesting. The "Ask E.T." section is also well worth a read.
Read the Tufte article here
FYI: some more resources
Actually, you touch on what I consider a problem with Tufte and the computer domain. Many people always point to Tufte as the examples to follow into making clear displays and websites to display lost of data. But when you actually try to adapt anything he does, one quickly find out that most of his examples of visualizing repetitive data are predicating on using high-resoltuion output -- like paper. Not screen. You cannot show 40 T-shirts, or faces, or blocks depciting small differences in a dataset on a 72 or even 110 dpi screen, at the same time. Unless your screen is a poster. Just can't be done.
In fact, when actually specifically starts to give recommendations working on the screen, they are not so good, although I cannot find the link to such a recommendation that supports my opinion.
Why are you splitting the top 5% into two groups? Why, to make their contributions look smaller!
Because that's how the original Seattle Times graphs broke them down. And given how large a part of the federal budget is devoted to Social Security and Medicare, it's ridiculous to look only at income tax and not at all federal taxes. The total for all federal taxes for the top 5% is 41.2% of all taxes paid vs. the 44.6% paid by the "middle class" WHICH WERE ENTIRELY OMITTED from the Seattle Times graph.
(And for what it's worth, a bar chart was a poor choice for this graph. A pie chart would be preferred.)
While the fact that they're taking 100% of something and splitting it up implies a pie graph would be favorable, it's easier for people to see differences when it's a bar graph vs. a pie graph.
There was a story on this book in Slashdot a few years ago, and I ended up deciding to purchase the book.
It's decent material, and it's all accurate, but it's nothing revolutionary.
Generally, when the media publishes a misleading chart or graph it's done intentionally, and anyone of moderate intelligence realizes that when viewing the chart or graph.
The book is like Strunk and White for people who display quantitative information.
Strunk and White is not useful for most people raised on standard English grammar, and is quite frankly annoyingly parochial. Tufte's books strike me similarly. For instance, just as Strunk and White would likely find authors like Jack Kerouak or Junot Diaz abhorrent, Tufte would find Wired magazine abhorrent for all its visual excess and non-information-conveying design.
I haven't seen the latest edition, but I recommend browsing through this one at the book store before spending money on it.
Amazing magic tricks
I too am a consultant (time is valuable, must be selective, yaddayadda), and I was deeply disappointed in the one-day Tufte "seminar" I attended a few years back. He simply repeated the highlights of his books--which I'd already read, thanks--and showed the very same examples. This was really bizarre since all three books were included in the (steep) seminar price.
He didn't talk at all about more recent work with digital media, which I'd thought was the point of the seminar. For what it's worth, he also seemed like kind of a jerk.
The whole event seemed geared toward people who needed an "executive summary" so they could just plop the book on a coffee table and fill out that expense report. My advice? Save some time and money--buy and study the books, but avoid the medicine show.