6 ms·

When Did Charts Become Popular?

66 points by Stratoscope 10y ago

brudgers 10y ago
The graph correlates with my first reactive speculation: graphs in newspapers became more common with the publication of USA Today [first published 1982]. The inclusion of graphs was one of the its striking features -- liberal use of color was another and vacuous reporting a third.
- dougmccune 10y ago
  As a lover of maps I also instinctively thought of USA Today. I can't locate a source right now, but I remember reading that USA Today's multi-color, full page weather map on the back was way ahead of its time, before any other publications were dedicating that type of effort/cost/space to cartographic data viz. It gave me a new appreciation for USA Today, which mostly I had written off as "that free unread paper outside my hotel room door". But they played a role in bringing beautiful maps to the masses.
  - losteverything 10y ago
    Maps to the masses was also national geographic.
- mc32 10y ago
  Didn't atlases also have a myriad different kinds of graphs to represent economic output and other statistical representations?
flukus 10y ago
I had no idea how recent a phenomena this was, just part of life that gets taken for granted. I had no idea my parents grew up in a world without charts.
showerst 10y ago
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any discussion of the difficulty typesetting or printing charts, beyond just creating them. I imagine this had to pose a significant hurdle to early newspapers.
- ggus 10y ago
  This. Arranging words is already a hard, long, tedious task when you have to pick every single small letter by hand (or using strange contraptions called linotype). Printing charts seems to be even more costly and time consuming.
zeta0134 10y ago
Oh good. I expected to see a chart on the popularity of charts. I was not disappointed. I've got to imagine that printing the early charts on machines largely designed to print text would have been such a chore. But I don't know how the printing presses really worked; I'm so used to today's computer driven printing.
- Stratoscope 10y ago
  Once you see how the old printing presses worked, it's pretty clear why there weren't many charts back then. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movable_type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movable_type And this image search really tells a story: https://www.google.com/search?q=movable+type&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=movable+type&tbm=isch
  - kahirsch 10y ago
    But there was no problem in inserting graphics and, with offset printing, photos into the page decades before charts became common. Here's a page from 1933: http://imgur.com/Mkzihb6 http://imgur.com/Mkzihb6 But, before computers, the charts had to prepared by hand. Also (unrelated to charts) the movable type was replaced with "hot type" starting in 1886. Newspapers typesetters used a keyboard and the typesetting machine automatically assembled the type molds and poured molten lead into them, producing a slug for each line of type (hence Linotype). https://www.google.com/search?q=hot+type+slugs&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=hot+type+slugs&tbm=isch The machines are pretty amazing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wHiddZOfa8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wHiddZOfa8 Here's a video about the last NY Times issue that was set using linotypes (in 1978): https://vimeo.com/127605643 https://vimeo.com/127605643
thekevan 10y ago
It's almost as if they became more much more popular after an invention which sat on your desktop and allowed you to create in minutes what would have taken an artist hours.
ams6110 10y ago
Ross Perot's presidential campaign.
- blunte 10y ago
  This was my thought exactly. It really changed things in politics... for a short while.

66 points by Stratoscope 10y ago

The graph correlates with my first reactive speculation: graphs in newspapers became more common with the publication of USA Today [first published 1982]. The inclusion of graphs was one of the its striking features -- liberal use of color was another and vacuous reporting a third.

dougmccune 10y ago
As a lover of maps I also instinctively thought of USA Today. I can't locate a source right now, but I remember reading that USA Today's multi-color, full page weather map on the back was way ahead of its time, before any other publications were dedicating that type of effort/cost/space to cartographic data viz. It gave me a new appreciation for USA Today, which mostly I had written off as "that free unread paper outside my hotel room door". But they played a role in bringing beautiful maps to the masses.
- losteverything 10y ago
  Maps to the masses was also national geographic.
mc32 10y ago
Didn't atlases also have a myriad different kinds of graphs to represent economic output and other statistical representations?

flukus 10y ago

I had no idea how recent a phenomena this was, just part of life that gets taken for granted. I had no idea my parents grew up in a world without charts.

showerst 10y ago

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any discussion of the difficulty typesetting or printing charts, beyond just creating them. I imagine this had to pose a significant hurdle to early newspapers.

ggus 10y ago
This. Arranging words is already a hard, long, tedious task when you have to pick every single small letter by hand (or using strange contraptions called linotype). Printing charts seems to be even more costly and time consuming.

zeta0134 10y ago

Oh good. I expected to see a chart on the popularity of charts. I was not disappointed. I've got to imagine that printing the early charts on machines largely designed to print text would have been such a chore. But I don't know how the printing presses really worked; I'm so used to today's computer driven printing.

Stratoscope 10y ago
Once you see how the old printing presses worked, it's pretty clear why there weren't many charts back then. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movable_type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movable_type And this image search really tells a story: https://www.google.com/search?q=movable+type&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=movable+type&tbm=isch
- kahirsch 10y ago
  But there was no problem in inserting graphics and, with offset printing, photos into the page decades before charts became common. Here's a page from 1933: http://imgur.com/Mkzihb6 http://imgur.com/Mkzihb6 But, before computers, the charts had to prepared by hand. Also (unrelated to charts) the movable type was replaced with "hot type" starting in 1886. Newspapers typesetters used a keyboard and the typesetting machine automatically assembled the type molds and poured molten lead into them, producing a slug for each line of type (hence Linotype). https://www.google.com/search?q=hot+type+slugs&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=hot+type+slugs&tbm=isch The machines are pretty amazing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wHiddZOfa8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wHiddZOfa8 Here's a video about the last NY Times issue that was set using linotypes (in 1978): https://vimeo.com/127605643 https://vimeo.com/127605643

thekevan 10y ago

It's almost as if they became more much more popular after an invention which sat on your desktop and allowed you to create in minutes what would have taken an artist hours.

ams6110 10y ago

Ross Perot's presidential campaign.

blunte 10y ago
This was my thought exactly. It really changed things in politics... for a short while.