| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Authors' Committee
Chair:
Andy Eggers (Gov)
Members:
Weihua An (Soc)Kevin Bartz (Stats)
Sebastian Bauhoff (HealthPol)
John Graves (HealthPol)
Justin Grimmer (Gov)
Jens Hainmueller (Gov)
Mike Kellermann (Gov)
Ellie Powell (Gov)
Gary King (Gov)
Weekly Research Workshop Sponsors
Alberto Abadie, Lee Fleming, Adam Glynn, Guido Imbens, Gary King, Kevin Quinn, Jamie Robins, Don Rubin, Chris Winship
Recent Comments
- Re: "That looks cool!" versus "What does it mean?"
By: Axel Kreuzberg - Re: "That looks cool!" versus "What does it mean?"
By: Ben - Re: "That looks cool!" versus "What does it mean?"
By: Lindsay
Recent Entries
- Matching Portfolios
- Harvard Program on Survey Research (on Youtube)
- Placebo effects and the probability of assignment to active treatment
- IN, NC Rehash; WV Prediction
- Data sets and data interfaces at datamob.org
- Adventures in Identification III: The Indiana Jones of Economics
- Some Random Notes about the International Network Meeting
- What's New in Econometrics
- Plotting Survival Curves with Uncertainty Estimates
- Tuesday: Tips & Tricks
Categories
Blogroll
Brad DeLongCognitive Daily
Complexity & Social Networks
Developing Intelligence
EconLog
The Education Wonks
Empirical Legal Studies
Free Exchange
Freakonomics
Health Care Economist
Junk Charts
Language Log
Law & Econ Prof Blog
Machine Learning (Theory)
Marginal Revolution
Mixing Memory
Mystery Pollster
New Economist
Political Arithmetik
Political Science Methods
Pure Pedantry
Science & Law Blog
Simon Jackman
Social Science++
Statistical modeling, causal inference, and social science
Archives
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
Notification
« New York's anti-poverty experiment | Main | Applied Statistics - Richard Berk »
30 March 2007
"That looks cool!" versus "What does it mean?"
Every Sunday, I flip open the New York Times Magazine to the weekly social commentary, "The Way We Live Now," and I check out the accompanying data presentation graphic. First, I think, "That looks cool." Then, for the next several minutes, I wonder, "What does it mean?" I'm usually looking at an illustration like this:
I sat down to write this entry ready to argue that clarity is always more important than aesthetics when communicating with data and that the media needs to be more educated when it comes to data presentation. I still think those things. However, after a little googling, I discovered that Catalogtree (as in "Chart by Catalogtree" in the graphic above) is a Dutch design firm, not a research organization, and I started to wonder whether the Times knowingly prioritizes art over data for these graphics. Maybe communication is not the primary goal. This is, after all, a magazine, including fashion and a serial comic strip along with coverage of political and social issues.
How should a publication balance illustration and information? If I belong to a statistics department, am I allowed to say, "That looks cool!" and not point out that a chart is indecipherable? My gut reaction is that information should always win, but maybe I'm wrong - and I do like the designs. You can see some of Catalogtree's other creations for the Times here and their other work here.
Posted by Cassandra Wolos at March 30, 2007 1:49 PM
Comments
Two relevant, but separate, questions:
1. What *is* the magazine trying to do?
2. What *ought* the magazine be trying to do?
Regarding 1., you may be right when you say 'Maybe communicartion is not the primary goal'. If not, then principles of data presentation are presumably not relevant to the chart designer's (and editor's, etc.) purpose.
But you are still entitled to put forward (and may be as a result be obligated to defend) a view about 2., about what the magazine ought to be trying to do.
I guess your post was provoked by the view (whether or not you articulated it fully even to yourself) that a newspaper, including the fashion and humour sections, ought to aim to inform and educate, even as it entertains. This is a defensible view, I would argue.
Posted by: Lindsay at March 30, 2007 4:32 PM
I may be preaching to the choir, but Tufte would say there's no reason such graphics can't be both clear _and_ beautiful. (http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/)
Posted by: Ben at April 2, 2007 2:54 PM
You might be interested in another example of 'cool-looking' charts used by blog www.modernlifeisrubbish.co.uk in the article 'Demographics of Digg'. The digg.com entry for this article was full of comments admiring the coolness of the chars. Here is the link: http://www.modernlifeisrubbish.co.uk/article/the-demographics-of-digg
And its digg comments:
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/The_Demographics_of_Digg
Posted by: Axel Kreuzberg at April 6, 2007 4:10 PM