Learn the effectiveness and appropriateness of 2-D and 3-D charts
by Luigi Canali De Rossi
When first confronted with the option of adopting 3-D graphs
styles most presenters jump on board without even thinking
about it. 3-D graphs look cool, more modern and fancy and they
can offer strong visual impact to the presentation of otherwise
boring statistical graphs.
3-D graphs are those statistical charts in which bars, pies and
columns are all set in a three-dimensional look and feel. Bars
protrude, perspective is exaggerated, colors change depending
on which side of an object they are displayed on. The look of
"computer graphics", the perception of cutting-edge visuals
produced by a great interaction between humans and technology
is all there.
Only few people actually stop and look beyond the surface.
People seldomly complain and despise your design choices. Only
few really read or try to understand what your 3-D graphs are
telling them. Most, like you, are simply enthralled by
technology for technology's sake and simply get off by the idea
of creating "three-dimensional" statistical graphics with
a computer.
Most have forgotten that to communicate is to bring out
information from data and to simplify it, clarify it, emphasize
it. Glorifying it in the beauty of 3-D, enriching it with
exaggerated perspectives and shadows have what roles in
effective communication?
What is your audience looking at? Is it looking to be mystified
by a glamorous presentation or does it want to know more about
the profit increase you have made this year? Is it inundated by
an avalanche of colors and visual components all set up to
attract attention, or is it served with a visual synthesis of
what the data say? How much time does it take for your ausience
to make sense of the whole graph and be able to describe its
core message to others?
What is the gain in having people drop their lower jaw while
looking at your presentation graphs if they can't understand
easily and rapidly what the information in the graphs is
telling them?
The moment they forget about the design of the graph and they
can tell at once what they are looking at and what story is
being told, the statistical graphs reach the apex of their
scope and mission: creating immediately understandable
information designs.
In conclusion, use 3-D sparingly, and only when specific
situations warrant its use and when readability of all
components of the graph is not compromised or significantly
modified.
The choice of 2-D versus 3-D should not be based on visual
impact factors but on criteria leading the users to more easily
read and understand the information presented.
There are appropriate situations and opportunities for both.
But do not think that 2-D is inferior in some way to 3-D. After
much experience in designing statistical graphs and charts, I
have come to appreciate the effective greater usability and
legibility of graphs created at the simplest 2-D level.
3-D should be used in situations where the data is made up of
few and very identifiable elements, like in a pie or in some
bar and column charts. If the chart contains a lot of
categories and items 3-D may be able to give a better overall
picture while sacrificing legibility of some detail.
Thus, there is no absolute better choice. It always depends.
But again, think readability and comprehension before "nice-looking" and "cool".
You can read this article in the original issue of MasterView.
