"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. C

"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.