I certainly agree that Charles Minard’s map is a great visual illustration. It definitely conveys multiple layers of information in a simplistic and easy-to-understand manner. However, I do not know if I would agree that it is “the best statistical graphic ever drawn”, as described by Edward Tufte. Granted, I can neither argue an example of a “better statistical graphic” nor say that I am as experienced in statistical and data visualization as Tufte. I would not be surprised at all if this map was way ahead of its time, but I would be hesitant to agree that it is the best of all time. Surely, digitalization and technology advancement has produced better illustrations?
I think Michael Sandburg’s annotated map marginally improves the reader-friendliness of the original map. Although the annotations may not add new information or create new methods to illustrate the data differently, they make understanding the map much easier for viewers, as the ordered annotations help direct the reader’s attention and introduce the details of the map step-by-step. Otherwise one could be overwhelmed by the share amount of factors the map is trying to convey and miss the opportunity to fully absorb the information. I’d argue that annotations like this are still “improvements”, as they help make conveying the information more efficient, perhaps especially towards the modern audience.
While listening to Lin’s guest lecture, I could’t help to notice that some of the less polished graphs look more similar to what one would expect from a scientific journal than those tidied and better presented ones. I wonder if scientific researchers intentionally preferred to present their data in a matter-of-fact way, or if they are not well trained in effective visual presentations of their data. It is definitely going to be challenging to balance between conveying a message or narrative effectively and avoiding over-execration that makes the presented data misleading. I think this is very applicable and challenging to all areas of data visualization, including in DH.
Hi Ethan, I also looked at Charles Minard’s map and agreed that the map put so much complex information into a format that was visually compelling and easy to understand. I didn’t think about how interesting it is that this map was produced so long ago when we have so much new technology that could help make data visualizations be more persuasive than this. I wonder if in the future, people will make more edits to this map as we have more new technology accessible.
This was a fun read! I agree with your point that Minard’s map simply and effectively conveyed multiple pieces of information, but the annotated version was a great guide to understand it better. With digital tools available to us now, I wonder how Charles Minard could have made even more compelling visualizations.