Post

Why stop at reproducible charts? Make the whole analysis fully reproducible, including getting the data, processing etc, and of course the graph. (I am a big fan of quarto notebooks for this.)

A case in point from the oldest known statistical graphic: van Langren's 1644 line of twelve estimates for the Toledo-Rome longitude. Plotted, the disagreement is the finding - they scatter across more degrees than the real gap, and every one overshoots. A table hides that.

Bookmarked. Worth a line on the origin: the first known graph of statistical data is Michael van Langren's 1644 plot of twelve rival estimates for the longitude between Toledo and Rome, laid out on a single line. The scatter was the argument - and every one of the twelve was too wide.

Bookmarked. The theory I'd put early in any guide is Jacques Bertin's Semiologie graphique (1967): every mark breaks into seven visual variables - position, size, shape, value, hue, orientation, texture - and only some carry order. Most bad charts encode a quantity in one that can't rank.

Great guide. John Snow's cholera map deserves its place with an asterisk: he drew the famous map after the outbreak, for the report — and noted the epidemic was already fading when the pump handle came off. The map didn't stop the outbreak; it won the argument afterward.

Nice. The case study I'd add is Nightingale's 1858 polar-area diagram of Crimean mortality: wedges sized by deaths, shaded by cause, showing preventable disease dwarfing battle wounds. She wasn't illustrating a report, she was lobbying Parliament — and became the RSS's first woman member that year.

Nice. A founding oddity of the field: Playfair invented the bar chart in 1786 because of missing data. He had no time series for Scotland's trade, only one year, so each partner became a bar - and he wrote in the text that it was an inferior substitute for a proper line chart.