Chapter 4 Avoiding Deception

4.1 Summary

Intentional or not, data

visualisations can
obfuscate and deceive
your audience (Bresciani
and Eppler 2008). As Kirk
(2012) reminds us, one of
the four guiding principles
of data visualisation is to
avoid deception.
According to Pandey et al.
(2015) a deceptive data
visualisation can be
defined as follows:

a graphical depiction of information, designed with or without an intent to

deceive, that may create a belief about the message and/or its components,
which varies from the actual message” (p. 1471).

This definition ignores intent, which Kirk (2014) takes issue with. Kirk reasons
that deception implies a deliberate attempt to mislead the audience. When
the intent is not there, for example the designer is blissfully ignorant of the
issue, the data visualisation is said to be confusing. This is semantically true,
but the audience is rarely in a position to judge intent and, ultimately, the
designer is responsible for their work. Therefore, if you do not take
precautions, poor decisions can lead to a “perception of deception”. Data
visualisation designers don’t get their day in court to judge intent, so you
need to take reasonable steps to minimise this risk. Do not expect your
audience to be as objective as Kirk (2014). Therefore, this chapter will take a
close look at some of the most common methods used in data visualisation
that risk deception, real or perceived, and useful strategies for minimising
this risk in your own work. This chapter can be seen an as extension of
Chapter 3, where you have already taken a look at human visual perception
and the responsible use of colour. Inappropriate use of colour, in particular,
can be deceptive, so you are already well on your way to avoiding deception.

4.1.1 Learning Objectives

The learning objectives for this chapter are as follows:

  Identify and discuss the following deceptive data visualisation issues:

o The issue with pie and doughnut charts

o Truncated axes

o Using area or size to depict a quantity

o Changing plot aspect ratio

o Ignoring convention

o Dual axes

o Other poor scaling methods

o Visual bombardment

 Discuss and apply practical strategies for avoiding the deceptions

above.

4.2 Pies and Doughnuts

Pie charts, and variations thereof, including the equally delicious doughnuts
chart, are arguably the most controversial data visualisation ever created.
Credited to the work of William Playfair, pie charts are now over 200 years
old (Spence 2005). Love them or hate them, they are here to stay. So, why
are pie charts so controversial? Should you use them? Are there better
alternatives? The following section will explain.

Pie charts, and variations such as the doughnuts charts, are very common.
You don’t need to trawl the internet or popular press for very long to find
many examples. Energy Australia published a typical example of a pie chart,
shown in Figure 4.1, which shows the market penetration of different forms of
heaters in Australian in 2014 (Energy Rating 2019). This is a “good” example
of a pie chart. Good use of colour, not too many categories, and labels and
values included.
Figure 4.1: A typical pie chart (Energy Rating 2019).

Pie charts use angle to represent proportions or percentages. In Figure 4.2,

the audience is forced to compare angle A to B. This is not an easy task to do
accurately. Lucky for the value labels.
Figure 4.2: Pie charts require the comparison of angles (Energy Rating 2019).

Pie and doughnut charts also use area (see Figure 4.3). The viewer has to
compare the area of each pie or doughnut slice. Skau and Kosara
(2016) found that the most important aesthetic used in the interpretation of
pie charts was area. So, the use of angle in pie charts isn’t the primary visual
variable. Again, differences are easier to see when they are large, however,
things get tricky when the proportions are similar.
Figure 4.3: Pie charts also require comparison of area (Energy Rating 2019).

Figure 4.4 shows another example by Stanton and Alcorn (2016) from The
Citizen. The pie charts are used to compare Australian emissions by state
and then by industry for Victoria. They use the same colour scale to
represent both state and economic sector which makes looking back and
forth between the legend and pie charts very time consuming.
Figure 4.4: Pie charts rely on colour to differentiate categories (Stanton and
Alcorn 2016).

Pie charts have spawned many variations. Wired Staff (2008) presented
examples of doughnuts charts (pie charts with a hole in the middle) to
visualise the changing caloric composition of diets across select countries
(see Figure 4.5). The size of the doughnuts represents calories and each
segment of the doughnuts represent the proportion of calories that come
from major food groups. Each row represents a different three year interval,
starting in 1969-1971 and comparing it to 2001-2003. Both size and the area
of each segment are difficult to visually compare across countries and time.
For example, is the proportional composition of sugar and sweeteners
different across time for Brazil? It is very hard to tell with a reasonable
degree of accuracy. While eye-catching, the visuals miss the mark.
Figure 4.5: Doughnut charts are a variation of the pie chart (Wired Staff
2008).

Figure 4.6 shows another example from The Economist (The Economist
Online 2011) comparing different countries on the proportion of time spent
on major activity categories for 15-64 year olds. The visuals are mostly
unhelpful. The audience if forced to read and compare the numeric values.
Figure 4.6: When visuals fail, the viewers are forced to read the values (The
Economist Online 2011).

Are doughnut or pie charts better? Skau and Kosara (2016) found that pie
and doughnuts charts are similar in terms of speed and accuracy. If pie and
doughnuts charts were not enough, what about pill charts? Daly (2016) used
3D pie charts to show the proportion of drug related convictions in the UK by
race (see Figure 4.7). Don’t be fooled. There is only one pie chart. It is just
copied to appear like pills. Thankfully, I don’t think pill charts have, or ever
will, catch on.
Figure 4.7: Are pill charts the next big thing in data visualisation? (Daly
2016).

So, what’s the issue? Pie charts are cool, right? No, and for very good reason.
While pie chart apologists will claim that no other plot can show “parts of a
whole” as well as a pie chart, we have already hinted at the main issue.
Angle and area have low accuracy for representing numeric values as
pointed out by Cleveland and McGill (1985). This makes the proportions
represented in the pie chart a lot harder to judge compared to position on an
x or y axis. The problem is very pronounced when the proportions are similar.
Consider Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.8: When values in a pie chart are similar, fast, accurate comparisons
become difficult.

You might be surprised to know that there is quite a bit of difference between
some of the proportions in each pie chart. This is made painfully obvious in
the bar charts below.

Figure 4.9

Figure 4.9: Bar charts are always more accurate than pie charts.
Empirical research hasn’t identified a clear winner. For example, Croxton and
Stryker (1927) (Yes, pie charts have been controversial for a long time!)
found evidence that pie and bar chart accuracy depends on the specific
proportions being represented. This suggests that the accuracy of bar vs. pie
depends on the data. Regardless of accuracy, there are still other reasons
that pie charts are problematic. Here is list of the issues discussed so far as
well as the other known issues:

 Area and angle lack visual accuracy compared to position (e.g. bar
charts)

 Pie charts perform poorly when proportions are similar

 Pie charts rely on colour to differentiate between segments. Therefore,

colour needs to be used with caution.

 Pie charts are limited in the number of categories they can present
effectively.

 Pie charts with very small proportions are hard to see and label.

Why are pie charts, and its variations, ubiquitous despite these
concerns (Spence 2005)? Gelman and Unwin (2013) differentiates between
statistical data graphics and infographics, where the later focuses on
grabbing attention and the former on facilitating understanding about
patterns present in the data. For Gelman and Unwin (2013) pie charts are
considered an info graph because they appear to readily grab peoples’
attention. Cawthon (2007) suggests that this may be explained by their
findings which showed that people prefer the aesthetics of visualisations that
exhibit organic qualities (smooth, continuous and natural forms) as opposed
to the artificial qualities of straight lines, angles and equal spacing. Form and
function are in constant tension in data visualisation. Balance is the key.

Simon Weller, a former student from the course that inspired this textbook,
shows how the The Economist’s (The Economist Online 2011) doughnut chart
can be visualised effectively using the “humble” bar chart (see Figure 4.6).
While it might not be as visually striking at the original, function is restored.
The audience can rapidly compare countries on where they are spending
more or less time. A feat that could only be achieved in the original by
reading the value labels.
Figure 4.10: Simon Weller, a former student, fixed The Economist Online
(2011)’s doughnut charts using faceted bar charts.

So, what is the take home message? Pies and doughnuts are for eating.
Don’t be tempted to use them in data visualisation. Especially when the
humble bar chart works very well. Figure 4.11 shows a nice gif from
Joey Cherdarchuk (2014) from Darkhorse Analytics that captures the lesson
well (only available online).
Figure 4.11: Devour the pie! (Cherdarchuk 2014).

4.3 Truncated Axis

When we have a count or ratio variable, truncating an axis, or shortening it,

will distort the relative differences between groups (Pandey et al. 2015). This
is commonly seen in bar charts such as Leo (2019) from The Economist (see
Figure 4.12). In Leo (2019)’s exposé of bad data visualisations from The
Economist, you can see the impact of truncating the axis in the original bar
chart of Jeremy Corbyn’s likes per post on Facebook. The second bar chart
removes the truncated axis which corrects the proportionality to other
accounts. The second, more accurate, bar chart shows just how much more
popular Jeremy’s posts are to other accounts.
Figure 4.12: A truncated axis can severely distort a data visualisation (Leo
2019).

Here is another example of a strange truncated axis reported by Stafford and

White (2018) from Car and Driver (see Figure 4.13). It is not clear from the
plot where the x-axis starts. The assumption would be 0. This means the first
half of the x-axis is equal to 30 miles per gallon (MPG), and the second half
of the axis 100 MPG. Weird indeed.
Figure 4.13: An unusual x-axis (Stafford and White 2018).

To see what effect this has on the visualisation, let’s do a simple bar chart for
comparison. As you can see in Figure 4.14, the original visualisation
underestimates the MPG difference of the Chevrolet Bolt and Kia Soul relative
to the other cars.

Figure 4.14: Fixing the unusual x-axis in Stafford and White (2018).
Parkinson (2013) presents a more typical example where the y-axis does not
start at 0 (see Figure 4.15). This means our sense of the relative difference in
British men’s average height at age 21 across time is grossly exaggerated.

Figure 4.15: Notice the truncated y-axis (Parkinson 2013).

Look at Figure 4.16 which does not truncate the y-axis. Now this presents a
very different picture and puts the height increase in perspective. Taller, yes,
but not by the magnitude visually depicted in Parkinson (2013). Parkinson
(2013) does include a visual cue to alert the reader to the truncated axis. You
will notice two small slashes that break the axis. However, this visual cue is
not strong enough and many readers will miss it.
Figure 4.16: Fixing the y-axis of Parkinson (2013).

4.4 Area and Size as Quantity

Cleveland and McGill (1985) have already shown that area and size rank
lower than position in terms of accuracy when visualising a quantitative
variable. Pie charts are one example of this issue. However, the way in which
area and size are scaled can also be problematic. Take the bar chart
from ACMA Research and Analysis Section (2015) for example (see
Figure 4.17). It is not clear what the y-axis represents. Is it the number of
mobile-only phone users or the percentage of the Australian population who
are mobile-only phone users? Both are reported, but they are not the same
thing. As the population size grows each year, looking at the total number of
users can be misleading. The percentages are more useful. The bars also
have a width value which creates an area/size for each bar depicted as a
mobile phone. It appears the aspect ratio of each bar is fixed, so the “bars”
appear like an iPhone. There is little information provided that explains how
the area or size of each phone was scaled.
Figure 4.17: Growth of the mobile-only phone user, December 2010 to
December 2014 (ACMA Research and Analysis Section 2015).

Let’s figure out if this unusual bar chart has deceived us. First, let’s do some
image manipulation. If you take 13% and double it, you get 26%. Therefore,
the Dec-13 area should be about twice the area of Dec-10. According to
Figure 4.18, it is not. Dec-13 appears close to four times larger. This suggests
that the size of each phone might be scaled as Area = Length * Width.
Figure 4.18: Area is not scaled correctly (ACMA Research and Analysis
Section 2015).

Figure 4.19 shows the issue that this presents. Area and size needs to be
treated carefully as it can easily deceive (Pandey et al. 2015). Pandey et al.
(2015) state that best practice with area is using a 1:1 mapping between a
quantitative variable and the area depicted visually. We checked this by
superimposing the phones from Dec-10 and Dec-13 and found the mapping
to be approximately 1:4.
Figure 4.19: When using area, use a 1:1 mapping to avoid distortion (Pandey
et al. 2015).

How do you fix this? The best option is to use position on a y-axis. This is
time series data, so you should use a connected line graph. The result is
clearer and more accurate (see Figure 4.20).
Figure 4.20: Fixing the mobile phone bar chart using a time-series plot.

How would a 1:1 mapping appear if we stuck to size? This is shown in

Figure 4.21. The areas are now accurate, but the connected line plot’s use of
position on the y-axis is far more accurate. Using this corrected size chart,
look back to 4.17 which drastically exaggerates the change across time.
Figure 4.21: 1:1 size mapping for the mobile phone bar chart.

4.5 Aspect Ratio

Changing the aspect ratio of a plot can also deceive (Pandey et al. 2015).
The aspect ratio refers to the ratio of a plot’s width:height. This is explained
in Figure 4.22.
Figure 4.22: Aspect ratio explained.

Plots that rely on showing a change across time, such as a time-series plots,
are sensitive to this issue because the aspect ratio directly impacts the
perceived rate of change. Let’s take a look at how easy it is to manipulate.
The time series plot of Average temperative anomaly, Global by Ritchie and
Roser (2017) from Our World in Data will be used as an example (see
Figure 4.23).
Figure 4.23: Average temperature anomaly time series plot by Ritchie and
Roser (2017).

The original is reproduced closely in Figure 4.24. We will use this to

manipulate the aspect ratio.
Figure 4.24: A reproduction of the temperature anomaly time series plot
by Ritchie and Roser (2017).

If you want to minimise the perceived change, you can increase the width of
the plot relative to the height. Figure 4.25 has an aspect ratio of 3:1. This
makes the rate of change across time appear more gradual.

Figure 4.25: Increasing the width of a plot relative to height minimise

perceived differences.

You can do the opposite to make the rate of change appear more rapid by
increasing the height of the plot relative to the width. Figure 4.26 has an
aspect ratio of 3:5. The change appears sudden and drastic.
Figure 4.26: Increasing the height of a plot relative to width increases
perceived differences.

Beware of this distortion when setting the size of your plots. You do not want
to unwittingly mislead your audience. There is no magic ratio. Use common
sense and avoid extreme ratios. This issue is more relevant than ever with
the widespread use of responsive web design, which means that websites
and web-based data visualisations are capable of re-scaling based on screen
size and viewing device. This means it is important to check the appearance
of your plots on different devices and fix the aspect ratio if distortions are
likely to occur.

4.6 Ignoring Convention

There are many conventions in data visualisation. For example, the

horizontal axis is referred to as x. Time is presented as progressing from left
to right and growth moving from the bottom of plot to the top. There are
historical, cultural and educational reasons underlying these conventions.
Convention is important because it allows you to make assumptions about
your audience. The audiences’ prior experiences and expectations determine
much about how they will perceive a data visualisation.

When you ignore these conventions, you risk misleading or confusing your
audience. For example, Chan (2014), as cited in Engel (2014), presents a
time series plot of gun-related deaths in Florida before and after the
enactment of the “Stand Your Ground” law in 2005 (see Figure 4.27). This law
made it legal to use deadly force for self-defense or the self-defense of
others. If you take a quick glance at the plot, you would be forgiven for
thinking that the act corresponded to a drastic decrease in gun-related
deaths. However, you would be wrong. Notice the inversion of the y-axis.
Figure 4.27: The infamous Gun Deaths in Florida plot by Chan (2014) as cited
in Engel (2014).

Flipping the plot upside down fixes the problem (see Figure 4.28).
Figure 4.28: Inverting the Gun Deaths in Florida plot by Chan (2014) as cited
in Engel (2014).
This visualisation drew a lot of criticism for being deceptive. However, not
everyone agreed. For example, Kirk (2014) argued it was not deceptive and
depended on how it was interpreted. Kirk (2014) reasoned that the area
coloured red was what visually corresponded to total deaths. The original
designer, Christine Chan, explained that they drew inspiration from a similar
visualisation named Iraq’s bloody toll by Scarr (2011) (see Figure 4.29). Red
is associated with blood and violence, and inverting the axis made it appear
like dripping blood. Regardless, ignoring conventions can be used to deceive,
confuse and ignite the internet against you. Stick to conventions.
Figure 4.29: Iraq’s bloody toll by Scarr (2011).

4.7 Dual Axes

The use of dual axes in data visualisation isn’t uncommon. This means that
instead of one variable being positioned on the y-axis, two variables are
plotted instead, one on the left and one on the right. Look
Figure 4.30 from The Economist (2016) showing how the weight and neck
size of dogs in the UK have shrunk overtime in what appears to be a perfect
relationship.
Figure 4.30: Dual axes in The Ecconomist (The Economist 2016).

However, Leo (2019) was critical of this orginal plot:

In the original chart, both scales decrease by three units (from 21 to 18 on

the left; from 45 to 42 on the right). In percentage terms, the left scale
decreases by 14% while the right goes down by 7%.”

In, other words, while both neck and weight go down, weight has decreased
quicker than neck size. Leo corrects this visualisation by adjusting the scales
so that each year shows a proportional change (see Figure 4.31).

Figure 4.31: Improving a dual axes plot (Leo 2019).

In general, dual axis plots should be avoided because they are easy to
manipulate and, even when done well, are prone to misinterpretation. The
secondary scale can often go unnoticed and are generally difficult to
understand. Just how easy are they to manipulate? Let’s take a look.
Figure 4.32 was adapted from Reddit user Buckbuckyyy (2019). The data
were taken from the City of New York website (NYC OpenData 2019). The plot
shows that despite the NYC population increasing, water use has declined.

198019902000201001234567890200400600800100012001400

PopulationMegagallonsNYC Water Consumption and Population from 1979 -

2017YearPopulation (Millions)Megagallons per day

Figure 4.32: NYC Water Consumption and Population 1979 - 2017.

The important thing to keep in mind when thinking about dual axes is that
the scaling of the secondary axis is completely arbitrary and has to be
carefully set by the designer so that the superimposition of the two variables
is accurately presented. This is difficult to get right and prone to deception.
Figure 4.33 presents an alternative scaling. It appears water consumption
has plummeted.

19801990200020100123456789100011001200130014001500

PopulationMegagallonsNYC Water Consumption and Population from 1979 -

2017YearPopulation (Millions)Megagallons per day

Figure 4.33: It is easy to manipulate a dual axes plot by manipulating the

scale. Water use has plummeted!

It is not hard to show something different. For example, that the population
has exploded (see Figure 4.34). While extreme, you get the point.

19801990200020106.577.588.59100011001200130014001500

PopulationMegagallonsNYC Water Consumption and Population from 1979 -

2017YearPopulation (Millions)Megagallons per day

Figure 4.34: Population has exploded!

User experiments by Isenberg et al. (2011) have shed light on the issues of
interpreting dual axis plots. Isenberg et al. (2011) used superimposed charts
for dual “scale” plots. The second axis was used to “focus” or “zoom” in on a
specific region of a plot to facilitate comparisons to other regions. While not
directly related to the use of dual “axis” plots for the purpose of visualising
two variables on the same axis, the findings of the paper are still relevant.
Participants from the study reported that the superimposed charts were the
most confusing and time consuming to interpret. They were also the least
accurate in terms of other methods tested in the experiment. What other
methods are appropriate? Few (2008), Evergreen (2020) and Rost (2018),
recommend aligning multiple plots (side-by-side or bottom and top) as they
are easier to implement and easy to understand (see Figure 4.35).

050010001500198019902000201002468

MegagallonsPopulation (Millions)NYC Water Consumption and Population

from 1979 - 2017Year

Figure 4.35: Aligning individual plots is a preferred alternative to dual axes

plots (Few 2008; Evergreen 2020; Rost 2018).
Another approach suggested by Few (2008) and Rost (2018) would be to plot
indexed values. For example, convert each variable to a percentage change
based on a reference year. This standardises the two variables to a common
scale. However, there are issues if the magnitude of the change is drastically
different between the variables. Converting two variables into a single ratio
variable is also sometimes possible. For example, you can use the ratio for
water use per person per day (see Figure 4.36).

19801985199019952000200520102015050100150200

NYC Water Consumption Per Person Per Day from 1979 - 2017YearGallons Per
Person Per Day

Figure 4.36: A ratio of two quantitative variables avoids dual axes.

Connected line plots might also be a useful alternative as demonstrated in

Figure 4.37, although they are likely to be unfamiliar and time-consuming for
the audience (Rost 2018; Evergreen 2020).

77.588.5100011001200130014001500

Population up, water consumption down, NYC 1979 - 2017Population

(Millions)Megagallons Per Day1981199720032017

Figure 4.37: Connecting points by time allows the viewer to correlate two
time-based variables.

As a general rule, avoid using dual axis plots. There are too many issues to
confidently deal with and better alternatives are available.

4.8 Other Poor Scaling Methods

You have already considered a number of deceptive methods related to poor

scaling - truncated axes, inverted axes and dual axes. Let’s consider a few
more. Cleverland, Diaconis, and McGill (1982) conducted a seminal
experiment where they manipulated the scale of a scatter plot in order to
determine its effect on judgement of correlation. In one scatter plot, the
scale was set to the range of the bivariate data (see plot A in Figure 4.38)
and in the second, the scale on both the x and y axis were increased (see
plot B in Figure 4.38). This had the effect of “zooming out” on the data. The
data are the same in both Plot A and B and the correlation is r=r= 0.89.
Figure 4.38: Zooming out in a scatter plot can exaggerate trends.

When asked to judge the correlation of the bivariate data across 19 different
scatter plots where the scale and correlation were manipulated. Participants
were found to rate the correlation in the plots with an increased scale (Plot B
above) significantly higher than plots with a smaller scale. This was the first
experiment to show empirically how the scale of a plot impacts
interpretation.

Yanofsky (2015) explains poor scaling on the y-axis in time-series plots can
render them useless. For example, truncating the axis in bar charts that aim
to facilitate proportional comparison across categories is considered bad
practice. However, this rule does not apply well to many time-series plots.
Take Yanofsky (2015)’s example of US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over
time shown in Figure 4.39. Including 0 in the plot hides the impact of the
Global Financial Crisis (GFC) due to the scale of GDP being in the trillions.
Figure 4.39: US GDP across time by Yanofsky (2015). Because the y-axis
scale starts at 0, the time series trend is barely noticable.

Plotting the data starting at 14 billion on the y-axis solves this issue and
allows the reader to see the clear slump characterised by the GFC (see
Figure 4.40).
Figure 4.40: Scaling the y-axis to start at 14bn ensures the sump of Global
Financial Crisis can be seen (Yanofsky 2015).

When manipulating the scale of your data visualisation keep examples like
these in mind. Poor scaling can easily exaggerate or understate trends in the
data. Scale your visualisations accurately and in a way that communicates
the right message.

4.9 Visual Bombardment

If you want to say anything about your data, make a data visualisation that
overwhelms your audience and distracts them from the real message in the
data. Use heaps of colour, groups, data etc. to paint a really complex visual
message. You want your audience to give up making any sense of the visuals
and then rely on text/narration/video to tell them the story or leave them
completely confused. Echelon Insights (2014) provide a great example in
Figure 4.41. Echelon Insights visualised 184.5 million 2014 Twitter mentions
of news stories and presented the following stacked and filled time series
plots.
Figure 4.41: Visual bombardment confuses your audience (Echelon Insights
2014).

Many people would look at these visualisations and be impressed. 184.5

million Tweets! Yah, data science! Echelon Insights are overwhelming their
audience to flex their big data muscle. Once you see past that, the visuals
are lacking. You simply cannot see, nor do you need to see so many news
topics depicted by countless colours. The annotations corresponding to
spikes in the Twittersphere are the only redeeming feature. Visual
bombardment is a common side-effect of big data.
Let’s take a look at another example. A Bird’s Eye View of Pharmaceutical
Research and Development by Aero Data Lab (2019) exhibits an impressive
range of strategies to bombard the audience (see Figure 4.42, the full screen
version is available here). Despite good intentions, the plot is largely
incomprehensible. There are far too many disease/conditions (800) that
require the viewer to scroll down and lose sight of other diseases (click on
the image below to see the full visualisation), inclusion of several variables (y
= disease, x = time, colour = company, size = number of clinical trial
subjects, shape = status of clinical trial) and extensive overplotting of
bubbles.

Figure 4.42: To many variables! (Aero Data Lab 2019).

Remember Kirk (2012)’s third guiding principle, Creating accessibility

through intuitive design. Data visualisation is based on human visual
communication. Whilst the computers you have access to today are more
than capable of creating big, complex plots, keep in mind that a human brain
will need to interpret it. Respect the cognitive and perceptual limits of your
audience. It is your job to make the data visualisation accessible.
4.10 Concluding Thoughts

This chapter has taken a close look at some of the common methods used in
data visualisation than can potentially deceive your audience. You also
considered strategies for avoiding similar deception in your own work. These
are some of the most common issues, but, keep in mind, there are many
other examples and many yet to be discovered. You must always take
reasonable steps to avoid deception. Otherwise you will fail in your
obligations to the audience.

References

ACMA Research and Analysis Section. 2015. “Australians get

mobile.” [Link]
Research-snapshots/Australians-get-mobile.

Aero Data Lab. 2019. “A bird’s eye view of pharmaceutical research and
development.” [Link]
landscape.

Bresciani, S., and M. J. Eppler. 2008. “The risks of visualization: A

classification of disadvantages associated with graphic representations of
information.” Institute for Corporate
Communication. [Link]
[Link].

Buckbuckyyy. 2019. “NYC water consumption over the years from 1979-
2017.” [Link]
_}nyc{\_}water{\_}consumption{\_}over{\_}the{\_}years{\_}from/.

Cawthon, Nick. 2007. “Qualities of perceived aesthetic in data

visualization.” In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Designing for User
eXperiences - DUX ’07, 1. New York, New York, USA: ACM
Press. [Link]

Cherdarchuk, Joey. 2014. “Salvaging the

pie.” [Link]

Cleveland, W. S., and R. McGill. 1985. “Graphical perception and graphical

methods for analyzing scientific data.” Science 229 (4716): 828–33.

Cleverland, W. S., P. Diaconis, and R. McGill. 1982. “Variables on scatterplots

look more highly correlated when the scales are increased.” Science 216
(4550): 1138–41. [Link]
Croxton, Frederick E., and Roy E. Stryker. 1927. “Bar charts versus circle
diagrams.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 22 (160):
473. [Link]

Daly, Max. 2016. “Exclusive: New conviction data tells us how the UK sells
drugs.” [Link]
ethnicity-282.

Echelon Insights. 2014. “The year in news.” [Link]

content/uploads/2014/12/[Link].

Energy Rating. 2019. “Water

heating.” [Link]

Engel, P. 2014. “This chart shows what happened to gun deaths in Florida
after ’Stand Your Ground’ was
enacted.” [Link]
increased-with-stand-your-ground-2014.

Evergreen, S. 2020. “Two alternatives to using a second y-

axis.” [Link]
axis/.

Few, S. 2008. “Dual-scaled axes in graphs. Are they ever the best
solution?” [Link]
_}intelligence/dual-scaled{\_}[Link].

Gelman, Andrew, and Antony Unwin. 2013. “Infovis and statistical graphics:
Different goals, different looks.” Journal of Computational and Graphical
Statistics 22 (1): 2–28. [Link]

Isenberg, P., A. Bezerianos, Pierre Dragicevic, and Jean-Daniel Fekete.

2011. “A study on dual-scale data charts.” IEEE Transactions on Visualization
and Computer Graphics 17 (12): 2469–
78. [Link]

Kirk, A. 2012. Data visualization: a successful design process. Birmingham,

UK: Packt Publishing Ltd.

———. 2014. “The fine line between confusion and

deception.” [Link]
confusion-and-deception/.
Leo, S. 2019. “Mistakes, we’ve drawn a
few.” [Link]
8cdd8a42d368.

NYC OpenData. 2019. “Water consumption in the New York

City.” [Link]
New-York-City/ia2d-e54m.

Pandey, Anshul Vikram, Katharina Rall, Margaret L. Satterthwaite, Oded Nov,

and Enrico Bertini. 2015. “How deceptive are deceptive
visualizations?” In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’15, 1469–78. New York, NY: ACM
Press. [Link]

Parkinson, Caroline. 2013. “Men’s average height ’up 11cm since

1870s’.” [Link]

Ritchie, Hannah, and Max Roser. 2017. “CO₂ and greenhouse gas
emissions.” [Link]
emissions.

Rost, Lisa Charlotte. 2018. “Why not to use two axes, and what to use
instead.” [Link]

Scarr, S. 2011. “Iraq’s bloody

toll.” [Link]
students-clash-new-zealand-university-over-hong-kong.

Skau, Drew, and Robert Kosara. 2016. “Arcs, angles, or areas: Individual data
encodings in pie and donut charts.” Computer Graphics Forum 35
(3). [Link]

Spence, Ian. 2005. “No humble pie: The origins and usage of a statistical
chart.” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 30 (4): 353–
68. [Link]

Stafford, Eric, and Annie White. 2018. “2019 Chevrolet Volt – Fuel economy
and driving range.” [Link]
chevrolet-volt-–-fuel-economy-and-driving-range/ar-BBNSPc2.

Stanton, Kate, and Gay Alcorn. 2016. “Old king coal, a dying
dynasty.” [Link]
The Economist.
2016. “Subwoofers.” [Link]
ers.

The Economist Online. 2011. “A day in the

life.” [Link]

Wired Staff. 2008. “The future of food: How science will solve the next global
crises.” [Link]
solve-the-next-global-crises/.

Yanofsky, David. 2015. “It’s OK not to start your y-axis at

zero.” [Link]