Guidelines
Suggest edit

Remove 3-D depth cues for private inspection of the data

For private inspection of quantitative findings, avoid added 3-D depth cues on line or bar charts of 2-D data to improve readability and mitigate presentation-oriented embellishment for analysts using the graph themselves.

  • purpose:refine
  • basis:empirical
  • audience:analyst
  • lever:encoding
  • quality:readability
  • aesthetic:style:avoid

advice

Keep working views flat

Remove 3-D depth cues when the graph is mainly for your own understanding of the data. For example, keep a 2-D area line or 2-D area bar for private inspection instead of a 3-D volume version meant to impress or stand out.

reason

Why flat views fit self-use

A self-use graph does not need presentation flourish, so redundant depth cues are less useful there.

Mechanism: Flat rendering keeps the display focused on the data itself, which better matches a chart used to understand what is going on for your own purposes.

Evidence: In the paper’s preference studies, 2-D graphs were preferred more for one’s own use than for showing others, and the forced-choice test favored the 2-D area graph over the 3-D volume graph for self-use (Levy et al., 1996).

context

Use when the chart is for your own reading

  • User Goal: Understand what is going on in the data yourself.
  • Task: Inspect the data privately rather than present it.
  • Data: 2-D quantitative data already planned as a line or bar graph.
  • Chart Setting: A static graph where 3-D depth cues are optional.
  • Audience: The analyst or chart maker.
  • Success Criterion: The graph feels better suited to your own inspection than a more presentation-oriented alternative.

exceptions

Do not use when the chart is mainly for presentation or memory

  • Break it when: The chart is being prepared mainly for other people. Why: The preference for 2-D was tied to self-use and weakened outside that setting.
  • Break it when: The chart must be memorable later without referring back to it. Why: Under memory-focused conditions, 3-D graphs were preferred more often.

costs

Costs of keeping the working view flat

Sacrifice: Some presentation flair. Risk: The chart may feel less striking if reused unchanged in a talk or slide. Mitigation: Reevaluate the depth treatment if the audience or purpose changes from self-use to presentation.

mistakes

Common misuse of private-inspection views

Mistake: Adding 3-D shading to the version you use to inspect the data yourself. Why it fails: The added depth is a presentation-oriented flourish that was less preferred for self-use.

check

Check whether the chart is really a working view

Failure Sign: You are using a showier 3-D version even though the chart is staying private. Quick Check: Ask whether the current version is for your own reading or for other people; if it is for yourself, compare it against a flat version. Stronger Test: Choose between flat and 3-D versions by asking which one you would keep if no one else were going to see it.

fix

Fix the working view

  • Remove depth shading from the chart you use for your own inspection.
  • Redraw a 3-D volume line or bar as a 2-D area version for the private working copy.
  • Reassess depth only if the same chart later becomes presentation material.

References

Levy, E., Zacks, J., Tversky, B., & Schiano, D. (1996). Gratuitous graphics? Putting preferences in perspective. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Common Ground - CHI ’96, 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1145/238386.238400