Critiquing Confusing Data Visualizations: Charts & Graphs
This paper critiques three data visualizations that suffer from poor design choices, including misleading proportions, cluttered layouts, and inadequate labeling. The first visual is a pie chart depicting jet engine problems among pilots, which obscures data relationships through non-standard formatting. The second is a bar chart showing white oak acorn collection percentages that is too crowded to interpret clearly. The third is an investment portfolio graphic with disorganized labeling and no supporting chart elements. For each visual, the paper identifies specific design failures and recommends more effective alternatives, such as bar charts and sorted displays, to improve clarity and readability.
- Introduction to Visual Critique: Overview of three visuals under review
- Visual 1: Jet Engine Problems Pie Chart: Critique of misleading pie chart design
- Visual 2: White Oak Acorn Collection Bar Chart: Critique of cluttered acorn data bar chart
- Visual 3: Investment Portfolio Graphic: Critique of disorganized portfolio visual
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each critique follows a consistent structure: identify the problem, explain why it fails, and recommend a specific alternative — making the analysis practical and actionable.
- The paper uses precise, descriptive language (e.g., "multi-colored blocks," "busy and crowded") to convey visual problems to a reader who may not have the visuals in front of them.
- Recommendations are concrete and grounded in visualization best practices, such as using bar charts for comparison and sorting data from largest to smallest.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied visual rhetoric analysis — evaluating not just aesthetic choices but how design decisions affect the communication of data. Each critique connects a specific design flaw to a failure of comprehension, showing cause-and-effect reasoning rather than mere opinion.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into three parallel sections, one for each visual. Each section addresses: (1) labeling and titling issues, (2) layout and readability problems, and (3) a recommended redesign. This parallel structure makes the paper easy to follow and demonstrates a systematic approach to visual analysis.
Introduction to Visual Critique
The following critique examines three data visualizations, identifying specific design flaws and recommending clearer alternatives for each.
Visual 1: Jet Engine Problems Pie Chart
This pie chart, depicting problems pilots have encountered with a particular type of jet engine, is extremely confusing. There is a multi-colored section that does not display traditional illustrative "slices" but rather multi-colored blocks. This creates a busy, hard-to-read visual. The relative sizes of the pie slices do not proportionately match the percentage of pilots experiencing various problems.
For example, the number of individuals reporting problems with the oil system (38%) occupies a section nearly half the size it should be in the chart. It is also unclear whether there is overlap between the problems some pilots experience. For instance, do the pilots with fuel control problems also have problems with fuel pumps, even though fewer pilots report fuel pump problems overall? Pie charts are most effective when slices are distinct, proportional, and clearly labeled — none of which applies here.
In this case, displaying the number of pilots experiencing various kinds of problems using a bar chart would render the findings in a clearer and more visually obvious manner, since bar charts handle overlapping or comparative category data far more effectively.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.