21–30 of 80 posts
For actual depth and substance regarding information visualization, you should just read Tufte, since much of this article is obviously informed by it: http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_vdqi
+1 million. That book changed my life, at least as far as information presentation is concerned. It's that good. If you ever make a chart or a graph, you owe it to yourself and your viewers to read that book.
Why does the URL say "10 reasons..." but the article title says "11 reasons..."? Honestly, that bothers me enough to not even read the rest.
Shouldn't you be bothered more about your emphasis on trivialities over the substance (or OCD)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 million. That book changed my life, at least as far as information presentation is concerned. It's that good. If you ever make a chart or a graph, you owe it to yourself and your viewers to read that book.
Was there a specific book you had in mind? There are 8 at the link.
For actual depth and substance regarding information visualization, you should just read Tufte, since much of this article is obviously informed by it: http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_vdqi
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't you be bothered more about your emphasis on trivialities over the substance (or OCD)?
What you call trivialities I call attention to detail. And your remark about OCD is offensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People rename articles, but URLs are not supposed to change, and should never break.
So the article was published before it was done? Clearly it was 10 when it got published... then it was increased to 11. I just think that if a person is going to publish something like this and expect people to listen, they should show that a certain amount of thought was put into it before releasing it into the wild. But I guess mine is an unpopular view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the article was published before it was done? Clearly it was 10 when it got published... then it was increased to 11. I just think that if a person is going to publish something like this and expect people to listen, they should show that a certain amount of thought was put into it before releasing it into the wild. But I guess mine is an unpopular view.
It wasn't 10, honest. I just can't count. Which is why I use computers and stuff. They count gooder than me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't you be bothered more about your emphasis on trivialities over the substance (or OCD)?
What you call trivialities I call attention to detail. And your remark about OCD is offensive.
Yes, but at some point what each one calls something stops, and they have to face objective reality.
Now, if you were talking about bad syntax/grammar/spelling, a blinking grey font over a white background, or something like it, yes, we could count that as "attention to detail". But not reading an article because of a mismatch with the title and it's URL (which isn't even targeted at humans) is an attention to useless detail, i.e to a triviality. I don't think there are "ifs and buts" about it.
>And your remark about OCD is offensive.
I'm sorry for that. But it could also be true. And those kinds of things are a sure-fire sign.
In which case, would it be less offensive (because it would then be just an observation) or more (because it would be tactless to point it out)?
Then again, I was trying to defend the article (which I found quite good) from a non warranted attacked over something less than a typo.
(Not that it's a big deal, I have some myself).