Anyone who has heard me speak about charts knows that I’m not a fan of three dimensional (3D) charts. Here are the reasons why.
All charts can present problems in conveying information if used improperly. What makes 3D charts unique is that their major problem is inherent in the chart design itself -- namely, the confusion induced by the depth of field effect.
Conveying a third dimension on a two dimensional surface creates difficulties for the eye and the brain. Just look at some of the fantastic optical illusions that prey upon the brain's bewilderment when confronted with a 3D simulated image on a 2D plane. When you try to get information from a three dimensional chart, you have to use mental gymnastics to make allowance for the depth of field effect. My first rule of chart design is that if you have to use any mental gymnastics on a chart to get the information you want, then it's not a good chart.
The first problem, evident even in a simple 3D clustered column chart (one or more data series all in the foreground), is that the brain automatically estimates the values of the columns from the grid in the background. Unfortunately, this gives a false reading since the actual height of the columns differs, sometimes appreciably, from the value read on the grid in the background.
In a true 3D column chart (with series data presented from foreground to background, see chart below), the confusion is even worse. First, observe the problem noted above. The tallest blue column visually aligns with the gridline for 50 in the background. Yet its actual value is 65.
A second problem is that it is difficult to compare the values of the different columns. The tallest blue column and the tallest green column appear at exactly the same height on the chart. Obviously the blue column is a higher value since it starts at a lower point on the chart but it is difficult to determine with any precision how much higher it is. You could, of course, use data labels to put the value at the top of each column but there are two problems with this, especially with multiple data series charts. First, if you label all the columns in a three dimensional chart of more than one data series, the chart is overly busy. Second, and more importantly, although the labels clearly show that one column is numerically greater than the other, visually there is poor confirmation of this. If you feel compelled to use data labels to overcome the visual confusion inherent in a 3D chart, you would be better off using a non-3D chart or even a simple table of values.
A third problem is data dependent. In a multiple series 3D column chart, a higher value column in the foreground may totally obscure a lower value column in the background, resulting in missing data. Note in the chart above how the tallest blue column totally obscures a green column in the background (the value for the Night shift for Ward 106).
Finally, I find it much more difficult to identify patterns and trends in a 3D chart, especially one with more than one data series. I have to work at it -- something that well designed charts don’t require. One of the main purposes of displaying data in a chart is to facilitate the identification of patterns and trends and a non-3D chart does a much better job -- at least for me.
By the way, most experts who write books on chart design agree that 3D charts should not be used.
Dr. James M. Smith gives lectures at facilities/colleges and conferences across the country showing healthcare staff how to analyze and present data more effectively. His belief is that data presented as data are meaningless, but data presented as information are priceless. Information on his "largely bullet free" presentations may be found on his website.
Prior to becoming a consultant, James served the Quality Management Officer for Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area. He has a doctorate in Experimental Psychology from Fordham University and has over 35 publications in professional journals.
Categories: charting, guest_post, opinion, powerpoint
Chart design can be a very tricky business, and adding a third dimension to one rarely results in enhanced understanding on the part of the audience. As you point out, the perspective can skew the results and make it difficult if not impossible to make comparisons.
Good chart design begins by figuring out what message you want to present, then determining what kind of chart is the most appropriate. All too often charts are designed with busy legends, gridlines, and multiple colors that serve not to enhance data but to obscure it.
Slapping a 3D effect on a chart might make it look pretty but usually doesn't make it work better.
April 2003 | May 2003 | December 2003 | January 2004 | February 2004 | March 2004 | April 2004 | May 2004 | June 2004 | July 2004 | August 2004 | September 2004 | October 2004 | November 2004 | December 2004 | January 2005 | February 2005 | March 2005 | April 2005 | May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | August 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | June 2006 | July 2006 | August 2006 | September 2006 | October 2006 | November 2006 | December 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | April 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | August 2007 | September 2007 | October 2007 | November 2007 | December 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | May 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | August 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | November 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | April 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | September 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | October 2011 | November 2011 | December 2011 | January 2012 | February 2012 | March 2012 | April 2012 | May 2012 | June 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | September 2012 | October 2012 | November 2012 | December 2012 | January 2013 | February 2013 | March 2013 | April 2013 | May 2013 | June 2013 | July 2013 | August 2013 | September 2013 | October 2013 | November 2013 | December 2013 | January 2014 | February 2014 | March 2014 | April 2014 | May 2014 | June 2014 | July 2014 | August 2014 | September 2014 | October 2014 | November 2014 | December 2014 | January 2015 | February 2015 | March 2015 | April 2015 | May 2015 | June 2015 | July 2015 | August 2015 | September 2015 | October 2015 | November 2015 | December 2015 | January 2016 | February 2016 | March 2016 | April 2016 | May 2016 | June 2016 | July 2016 | August 2016 | September 2016 | October 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | January 2017 | February 2017 | March 2017 | April 2017 |
Microsoft and the Office logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.