4 ms·

Not sure about lightening the labels and removing bolding. Contrast and readability goes down.

• pmahoney 13y ago
  The idea is to keep focus on the data. The labels are reference when exact numbers are needed, but the data trend is king.
  • rcfox 13y ago
    The trend is meaningless without a reference. For example: http://i.imgur.com/zXkkJw4.png http://i.imgur.com/zXkkJw4.png vs. http://i.imgur.com/f6A84ds.png http://i.imgur.com/f6A84ds.png It's the same exact data (which I made up, by the way) but the first one tells a very different story from the second.
    • pmahoney 13y ago
      This has nothing to do with putting labels in bold or not, unless I misunderstood?
• steamer25 13y ago
  Readability may go down for the lightened elements but the point I took is that you can actually increase contrast by recognizing it as a two-way street. I.e., de-emphasizing less important details is perhaps even more effective at making the main emphasis (in this case the relative heights of the bars) stand out than trying to highlight it directly. Don't get me wrong--I agree that the units/what-are-we-actually-measuring, 'Calories per 100g', should be darker in the final graph (though I don't think it needed to be bold). I also think the direct-labelling step, which obviates the lightening of the y-axis and over-shoots attenuation in favor of full, bright whiteness is an improvement. Lightening may not be the best independent step but I think it's at least illustrative as an intermediate one.