
A leading data visualization expert explores the negative - and positive - influences that charts have on our perception of truth. We’ve all heard that a picture is worth a thousand words, but what if we don’t understand what we’re looking at? Social media has made charts, infographics, and diagrams ubiquitous - and easier to share than ever. While such visualizations can better inform us, they can also deceive by displaying incomplete or inaccurate data, suggesting misleading patterns - or simply misinform us by being poorly designed, such as the confusing “eye of the storm” maps shown on TV every hurricane season. Many of us are ill equipped to interpret the visuals that politicians, journalists, advertisers, and even employers present each day, enabling bad actors to easily manipulate visuals to promote their own agendas. Public conversations are increasingly driven by numbers, and to make sense of them we must be able to decode and use visual information. By examining contemporary examples ranging from election-result infographics to global GDP maps and box-office record charts, How Charts Lie teaches us how to do just that.
But if it helps, just some "initial gut feel observations" from me:
* It's definitely not possible to find issue with the the _sheer amount_ of results, but there's just far too much for a human to absorb, all presented at once
* Overall text size is quite small, and difficult to read
* The page doesn't make a strong statement of _what_ is under test: the first words are: "modern-fs-benchmark Multi-device CoW filesystems under workloads classic benchmarks skip" -- which defines the webpage in terms of what it is _not_, without stating what benchmarks are actually present.
* The first line of teh page contains run statistics that probably eithre want to b at the bottom, or just don't need to be in the webpage at all: "latest run 2026-09-18 18:50:45 UTC, kernel 7.0.0-1012-azure, 593 runs recorded · 145 trend points shown"
* A significant proportion of the free text is caveats. There's nothing wrong with being transparent about limitations, but they may be a sign that there might be alternative ways to present the data, or that the data may be flawed (depending on the caveat)
* Theres several categories that I think have been invented for the purpose of collation, but I don't think are defined on the page. I think "Overall Core" and "Core I/O" aren't explained, which means by definition it's impossible for a reader to understand the score table.
* And as we're all aware right now, current Claude models are currently struggling to write coherent English. There's several incoherent sentences on the page. It's a Claude issue.
Algorithms Unlocked, Thomas Cormen, 212 pages
The Art of Readable Code, Dustin Boswell & Trevor Foucher, 180 pages
How To Take Smart Notes, Sonke Ahrens, 151 pages
How to Write a Thesis, Umberto Eco, 223 pages
How Charts Lie, Alberto Cairo, 193 pages
https://www.amazon.com/How-Charts-Lie-Getting-Information/dp...