I can't count the number of times I've looked at a data visualization and wished I could sit down with the person who made it and read an Edward Tufte book to them. There's just so few good examples out there of data visualizations that respect basic principles of visual communication, like the ones outlined in this article. They generally seem to aim more for visual impact (like the useless 3D display in the article, which you've gotta admit is striking) than for clarity, which I guess is understandable but is still too bad.
(And as long as I'm griping, don't get me started on all the people who think a wall of text slapped into a PNG constitutes an "infographic.")
It seems like you are complaining about graphics in the article, but I'm not sure. If you read the article, it specifically talks about why those are not good visualizations and gives pointers on developing good ones.
For the 3D one specifically, right under the graphic, the article says: "3D has a time and a place. It can be a really useful way to encode thematic data on the z-axis and make something useful. But extruding Hubei compared to the rest of the areas just doesn’t work. It’s gratuitous and adds nothing. It’s really hard to make any sense of relative amounts and that’s before we even deal with foreshortening and occlusion."
P.S. From the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html):
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith... Please don't comment on whether someone read an article.
First you said, "I can't count the number of times I've looked at a data visualization and wished I could sit down with the person who made it and read an Edward Tufte book to them."
I was and am 100% on board with this comment. I think the same thing often.
Then you said "There's just so few good examples out there of data visualizations that respect basic principles of visual communication, like the ones outlined in this article."
I agree, the article does a pretty good job.
Then, "They generally seem to aim more for visual impact (like the useless 3D display in the article, which you've gotta admit is striking) than for clarity, which I guess is understandable but is still too bad."
I was uncertain about this statement. The previous sentence you start by stating "There's just so few good examples..." and end with "...like the ones outline in this article", which made it a little unclear if the one's in the article were good or not, but as I was reading it I was leaning to the good side. Then this sentence started with "They generally seem...", and since the end of the previous sentence ended talking about the "ones outlined in the article", I associated "They" with "the ones in the article". And this sentence that started with "They generally" was negative.
Then I contributed some miscommunication. When I used "you" in the sentence I was thinking in general terms (including myself) and not you personally. I think that might have been better stated as "If one reads the article...".
Anyway, I was initially confused by your statement. Now I see what you were going for.
Edits: grammar, missing words