Data-ink ratio is considered to be THE guiding principle in data visualization. Coined by Edward Tufte, data-ink is “the non-erasable core of a graphic, the non-redundant ink arranged in response to variation in the numbers represented.” According to Tufte, the ratio of the data-ink out of all the “ink” in a graph should be as high as possible, preferably, 100%.
Everyone who considers themselves serious about data visualization knows (either formally, or intuitively) about the importance to keep the data-ink ratio high, the merits of high signal-to-noise ratio, the need to keep the “chart junk” out. Everybody knows it. But are there any empirical studies that corroborate this “knowledge”? One of such studies was published in 1988 by James D. Kelly in a report titled “The Data-Ink Ratio and Accuracy of Information Derived from Newspaper Graphs: An Experimental Test of the Theory.”
In the study presented by J.D. Kelly, the researchers presented a series of newspaper graphs to a group of volunteers. The participants had to look at the graphs and answer questions. A different group of participants was exposed to similar graphs that underwent rigorous removal of all the possible “chart junk.” One such an example is shown below
Unexpectedly enough, there was no difference between the error rate the two groups made. “Statistical analysis of results showed that control groups and treatment groups made a nearly identical number of errors. Further examination of the results indicated that no single graph produced a significant difference between the control and treatment conditions.”
I don’t remember how this report got into my “to read” folder. I am amazed I have never heard about it. So, what is my take out of this study? It doesn’t mean we need to abandon the data-ink ratio at all. It does not provide an excuse to add “chart junk” to your charts “just because”. It does, however, show that maximizing the data-ink ratio shouldn’t be followed zealously as a religious rule. The maximum data-ink ratio isn’t a goal, but rather a tool. Like any tool, it has some limitations. Edward Tufte said, “Above all, show data.” My advice is “Show data, enough data, and mostly data.” Your goal is to convey a message, if some decoration (a.k.a chart junk) makes your message more easily digestible, so be it.
This is an interesting study. I think it’s worth noting, though, that Kelly only investigates a single type of visualization (horizontal bar charts) and more or less a single type of manipulation (decorating the background or superimposing illustrations). Lots of credit due for using real-world-derived stimuli and keeping the study constrained, but I don’t think these results let us draw many conclusions about data-ink ratio more generally when it comes to other types of presentation and other types of junk. I’m actually really curious about memorability here, and I wonder if in some cases the decorated graphs might be easier to recall down the road. On the other hand, I think there’s good empirical evidence against other types of junk (like many 3D charts).
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are right. That’s why we don’t declare the data-ink concept as a junk theory.