4 ms·

Rule #1 of Presentations is this: know thy audience. When Steve Jobs used pie charts in his keynotes, he was addressing an audience of developers, consumers, a

Rule #1 of Presentations is this: know thy audience. When Steve Jobs used pie charts in his keynotes, he was addressing an audience of developers, consumers, and loyalists. These were people he needed to keep impressed, and a great way to impress people is to make the data seem really BIG and compelling and outsized. (Remember that one presentation with the graph that expanded its axes and "zoomed out" in real time? That's serious data showmanship right there). Pie charts may not be the most accurate way to represent data, but when your goal is to sell a story, they can do the job nicely. That even nontechnical consumers are used to seeing them makes them easily digestible, too; in this sense, pie charts are a form of universally recognizable data language. Pie may be junk food of a sort, but it's comfort food all the same. You seem to believe that there is a "best" way to represent data, but therein lies the assumption that all audiences are largely homogenous. I disagree. There are certainly universal principles for good presentation design, but data representation is a tough one. The sophistication and expectations of the audience play a huge role in how you should speak to that audience.

ezpz 15y ago
While there is no 'best' way to present data, per se, there are studies that show some are [much] better suited to the purpose than others (Cleveland & McGill). About the only thing a pie chart is useful for is exposing the idea that the whole is the sum of its parts. If you care at all about those parts specifically then a pie chart fails you. Annotations help this, but at that point it's not the graphic that is conveying the information and you'd be better off removing the noise.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  I think the set of purposes you're considering is too limited. If you want an accurate comparison then a pie graph might always be a bad idea. But if the truth doesn't make you look good then the fact that a pie graph is bad at giving an accurate impression of the data actually is your purpose, and the pie chart might be the best graph for the job.
  - ezpz 15y ago
    That is a very slippery slope. As presenters of information we have a responsibility to provide the most accurate information possible in a way that is directly digestible. This responsibility exists in the face of uncomfortable data. "The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted." - Georg Lichtenberg
    - Symmetry 15y ago
      Sure, but when someone's doing something sketchy its important to be able to recognize that, rather than thinking they're stupid or confused or acting randomly. When you're discussing what is, don't be blinded by considerations of what ought to be.
    - jonnathanson 15y ago
      Any chart or graph, no matter how precise or sophisticated, can be used to distort. Oftentimes, people will intentionally bombard their audience with hyper-sophisticated and complex data readouts in order to prove how sophisticated their thinking has been (and, by association, how trustworthy their conclusions must be). Hedge funders have been doing a brilliant job of this for decades now. "Kill 'em with complexity" is a time-honored sales tactic.
nhebb 15y ago
In other words, there are lies, damn lies, and pie charts?
tel 15y ago
I think the more subtle question is what "best" means here. Knowing the sources jgc has probably been influenced by, it's going to be something like a measure of accurate information absorption by the audience. If you want to lie, which it's quite unmistakeable that Job's chart intends to deceive, then accuracy absorption is not you aim. But if you don't want to lie, I agree with jgc that pie charts are simply inadmissible.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  "accurate information absorption by the audience" But I'd argue that we can dissect even further -- in this case, into the process of information absorption. Certainly a crucial part of absorbing information is paying attention in the first place. Or understanding what we're seeing. On both of those counts, pie charts do a pretty quick and easy job for many hypothetical audiences. Some of the graphs and charts offered up in this article as alternatives to pie charts would, quite frankly, confuse the heck out of a lot of audiences. And if your audience doesn't understand what it's seeing, it's not going to absorb the information. Furthermore, if it has to be told what it's seeing, then it's already in an unreceptive psychological state. I would not advocate lying to an audience, or grossly misrepresenting data. But I certainly would keep two things in mind: 1) the data-sophistication of my audience, and 2) the attention span of my audience. A pie chart may not be terribly precise in its representation of data, but it's clearly, quickly, and almost universally recognized. Perhaps there's also room for a compromise in any given presentation: a data overview slide, with simple pie charts and other "30,000-foot" graphs, followed by a more detailed breakdown of key measurements in more precise terms. In this case, the first slide captures attention, and the second slide ensures accurate delivery.
  - tel 15y ago
    I'm not going to source this at the moment, but I'm 80% sure I've read studies that show pie charts increase audience confidence that they understand material but reduce their accuracy. Pie charts seem simple and easy to understand, which is really the most dangerous flaw. It's difficult for the human visual system to compare areas accurately.

ezpz 15y ago

While there is no 'best' way to present data, per se, there are studies that show some are [much] better suited to the purpose than others (Cleveland & McGill). About the only thing a pie chart is useful for is exposing the idea that the whole is the sum of its parts. If you care at all about those parts specifically then a pie chart fails you. Annotations help this, but at that point it's not the graphic that is conveying the information and you'd be better off removing the noise.

Symmetry 15y ago
I think the set of purposes you're considering is too limited. If you want an accurate comparison then a pie graph might always be a bad idea. But if the truth doesn't make you look good then the fact that a pie graph is bad at giving an accurate impression of the data actually is your purpose, and the pie chart might be the best graph for the job.
- ezpz 15y ago
  That is a very slippery slope. As presenters of information we have a responsibility to provide the most accurate information possible in a way that is directly digestible. This responsibility exists in the face of uncomfortable data. "The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted." - Georg Lichtenberg
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    Sure, but when someone's doing something sketchy its important to be able to recognize that, rather than thinking they're stupid or confused or acting randomly. When you're discussing what is, don't be blinded by considerations of what ought to be.
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    Any chart or graph, no matter how precise or sophisticated, can be used to distort. Oftentimes, people will intentionally bombard their audience with hyper-sophisticated and complex data readouts in order to prove how sophisticated their thinking has been (and, by association, how trustworthy their conclusions must be). Hedge funders have been doing a brilliant job of this for decades now. "Kill 'em with complexity" is a time-honored sales tactic.

nhebb 15y ago

In other words, there are lies, damn lies, and pie charts?

tel 15y ago

I think the more subtle question is what "best" means here. Knowing the sources jgc has probably been influenced by, it's going to be something like a measure of accurate information absorption by the audience. If you want to lie, which it's quite unmistakeable that Job's chart intends to deceive, then accuracy absorption is not you aim. But if you don't want to lie, I agree with jgc that pie charts are simply inadmissible.

jonnathanson 15y ago
"accurate information absorption by the audience" But I'd argue that we can dissect even further -- in this case, into the process of information absorption. Certainly a crucial part of absorbing information is paying attention in the first place. Or understanding what we're seeing. On both of those counts, pie charts do a pretty quick and easy job for many hypothetical audiences. Some of the graphs and charts offered up in this article as alternatives to pie charts would, quite frankly, confuse the heck out of a lot of audiences. And if your audience doesn't understand what it's seeing, it's not going to absorb the information. Furthermore, if it has to be told what it's seeing, then it's already in an unreceptive psychological state. I would not advocate lying to an audience, or grossly misrepresenting data. But I certainly would keep two things in mind: 1) the data-sophistication of my audience, and 2) the attention span of my audience. A pie chart may not be terribly precise in its representation of data, but it's clearly, quickly, and almost universally recognized. Perhaps there's also room for a compromise in any given presentation: a data overview slide, with simple pie charts and other "30,000-foot" graphs, followed by a more detailed breakdown of key measurements in more precise terms. In this case, the first slide captures attention, and the second slide ensures accurate delivery.
- tel 15y ago
  I'm not going to source this at the moment, but I'm 80% sure I've read studies that show pie charts increase audience confidence that they understand material but reduce their accuracy. Pie charts seem simple and easy to understand, which is really the most dangerous flaw. It's difficult for the human visual system to compare areas accurately.