[ubertakter]

It seems like you are complaining about graphics in the article, but I'm not sure. If you read the article, it specifically talks about why those are not good visualizations and gives pointers on developing good ones.

For the 3D one specifically, right under the graphic, the article says: "3D has a time and a place. It can be a really useful way to encode thematic data on the z-axis and make something useful. But extruding Hubei compared to the rest of the areas just doesn’t work. It’s gratuitous and adds nothing. It’s really hard to make any sense of relative amounts and that’s before we even deal with foreshortening and occlusion."

[smacktoward]

I read the article, thank you. It's you who have misread my comment. I was praising the article for illustrating good principles of visual communication, and lamenting how there are so many people making data visualizations out there that don't understand this stuff.

P.S. From the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html):

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith... Please don't comment on whether someone read an article.

[ubertakter]

Hence my first sentence, "It seems like you are complaining about graphics in the article, but I'm not sure."

First you said, "I can't count the number of times I've looked at a data visualization and wished I could sit down with the person who made it and read an Edward Tufte book to them."

I was and am 100% on board with this comment. I think the same thing often.

Then you said "There's just so few good examples out there of data visualizations that respect basic principles of visual communication, like the ones outlined in this article."

I agree, the article does a pretty good job.

Then, "They generally seem to aim more for visual impact (like the useless 3D display in the article, which you've gotta admit is striking) than for clarity, which I guess is understandable but is still too bad."

I was uncertain about this statement. The previous sentence you start by stating "There's just so few good examples..." and end with "...like the ones outline in this article", which made it a little unclear if the one's in the article were good or not, but as I was reading it I was leaning to the good side. Then this sentence started with "They generally seem...", and since the end of the previous sentence ended talking about the "ones outlined in the article", I associated "They" with "the ones in the article". And this sentence that started with "They generally" was negative.

Then I contributed some miscommunication. When I used "you" in the sentence I was thinking in general terms (including myself) and not you personally. I think that might have been better stated as "If one reads the article...".

Anyway, I was initially confused by your statement. Now I see what you were going for.

Edits: grammar, missing words

[smacktoward]

Your follow-up is quite gracious and helped me understand better where you were coming from. Apologies for being snippy in my earlier response.

[codetrotter]

As someone who read your comment before reading the article, I took your comment to mean that the article was poor because it had bad graphics. That's not a criticism against you on my part btw, only an observation. So it might be that more people read your comment that same way due to how you phrased it.

[blattimwind]

The article has bad graphics. The question whether GGGP criticizes the article or not is only resolvable if you know both the comment and the article. If you do, the answer is quite obvious. If not, it is hard to predict. A wonderful example of entropy.

[Stratoscope]

> It's you who have misread my comment.

Like several others, I was also confused by your initial comment. At first I thought you were criticizing the article as an example of bad graphics and useless 3D.

I am no master of communication, but there is one thing that stuck in my mind from a class I took many years ago: If I am talking to someone or writing something they read, and they seem to be misinterpreting or misunderstanding me, who is responsible for that? Is it the reader or listener, or is it me?

The lesson was that I, the person doing the communicating, am responsible, not the person receiving the communication. It's usually not helpful to blame them for misunderstanding. Instead I should realize that I was probably unclear in some way, and do what I can to clear it up.

Of course there are exceptions. Sometimes people are willfully misunderstanding and don't give you a chance to clarify. I remember one friend who delighted in pouncing on me if we were casually brainstorming and I said something that wasn't exactly what I really meant. When I would correct myself they would say "Oh no, you already said XYZ and you can't take it back now!"

But I think those cases are unusual, and I've found it very helpful to avoid blaming the listener and just see how I can be more clear.

[bobwaycott]

> ... lamenting how there are so many people making data visualizations out there that don't understand this stuff.

This point was clear in your top comment.

> I was praising the article for illustrating good principles of visual communication...

This point was completely unclear in your top comment.

I read your top comment three times, and each time made me feel more certain you were complaining about the site as an example of failing to implement good visualizations (until I read this comment).

[djmips]

Don't get so defensive about a communication mistake that you made while talking about communicating effectively. Can't you accept it with grace that your comment could be misinterpreted the way you wrote it? I also juggled in my mind what you meant.