% Copyright 2018 by Till Tantau
%
% This file may be distributed and/or modified
%
% 1. under the LaTeX Project Public License and/or
% 2. under the GNU Free Documentation License.
%
% See the file doc/generic/pgf/licenses/LICENSE for more details.


\section{Guidelines on Graphics}

The present section is not about \pgfname\ or \tikzname, but about general
guidelines and principles concerning the creation of graphics for scientific
presentations, papers, and books.

The guidelines in this section come from different sources. Many of them are
just what I would like to claim is ``common sense'', some reflect my personal
experience (though, hopefully, not my personal preferences), some come from
books (the bibliography is still missing, sorry) on graphic design and
typography. The most influential source  are the brilliant books by Edward
Tufte. While I do not agree with everything written in these books, many of
Tufte's arguments are so convincing that I decided to repeat them in the
following guidelines.

The first thing you should ask yourself when someone presents a bunch of
guidelines is: Should I really follow these guidelines? This is an important
question, because there are good reasons not to follow general guidelines. The
person who set up the guidelines may have had other objectives than you do. For
example, a guideline might say ``use the color red for emphasis''. While this
guideline makes perfect sense for, say, a presentation using a projector, red
``color'' has the \emph{opposite} effect of ``emphasis'' when printed using a
black-and-white printer. Guidelines were almost always set up to address a
specific situation. If you are not in this situation, following a guideline can
do more harm than good.

The second thing you should be aware of is the basic rule of typography is:
``Every rule can be broken, as long as you are \emph{aware} that you are
breaking a rule.'' This rule also applies to graphics. Phrased differently, the
basic rule states: ``The only mistakes in typography are things done in
ignorance.'' When you are aware of a rule and when you decide that breaking the
rule has a desirable effect, break the rule.


\subsection{Planning the Time Needed for the Creation of Graphics}

When you create a paper with numerous graphics, the time needed to create these
graphics becomes an important factor. How much time should you calculate for
the creation of graphics?

As a general rule, assume that a graphic will need as much time to create as
would a text of the same length. For example, when I write a paper, I need
about one hour per page for the first draft. Later, I need between two and four
hours per page for revisions. Thus, I expect to need about half an hour for the
creation of \emph{a first draft} of a half page graphic. Later on, I expect
another one to two hours before the final graphic is finished.

In many publications, even in good journals, the authors and editors have
obviously  invested a lot of time on the text, but seem to have spend about
five minutes to create all of the graphics. Graphics often seem to have been
added as an ``afterthought'' or look like a screen shot of whatever the
authors's statistical software shows them. As will be argued later on, the
graphics that programs like \textsc{gnuplot} produce by default are of poor
quality.

Creating informative graphics that help the reader and that fit together with
the main text is a difficult, lengthy process.
%
\begin{itemize}
    \item Treat graphics as first-class citizens of your papers. They deserve
        as much time and energy as the text does. Indeed, the creation of
        graphics might deserve \emph{even more} time than the writing of the
        main text since more attention will be paid to the graphics and they
        will be looked at first.
    \item Plan as much time for the creation and revision of a graphic as you
        would plan for text of the same size.
    \item Difficult graphics with a high information density may require even
        more time.
    \item Very simple graphics will require less time, but most likely you do
        not want to have ``very simple graphics'' in your paper, anyway; just
        as you would not like to have a ``very simple text'' of the same
        size.
\end{itemize}


\subsection{Workflow for Creating a Graphic}

When you write a (scientific) paper, you will most likely follow the following
pattern: You have some results/ideas that you would like to report about. The
creation of the paper will typically start with compiling a rough outline.
Then, the different sections are filled with text to create a first draft. This
draft is then revised repeatedly until, often after substantial revision, a
final paper results. In a good journal paper there is typically not be a single
sentence that has survived unmodified from the first draft.

Creating a graphics follows the same pattern:
%
\begin{itemize}
    \item Decide on what the graphic should communicate. Make this a
        conscious decision, that is, determine ``What is the graphic supposed
        to tell the reader?''
    \item Create an ``outline'', that is, the rough overall ``shape'' of the
        graphic, containing the most crucial elements. Often, it is useful to
        do this using pencil and paper.
    \item Fill out the finer details of the graphic to create a first draft.
    \item Revise the graphic repeatedly along with the rest of the paper.
\end{itemize}


\subsection{Linking Graphics With the Main Text}

Graphics can be placed at different places in a text. Either, they can be
inlined, meaning they are somewhere ``in the middle of the text'' or they can
be placed in stand-alone ``figures''. Since printers (the people) like to have
their pages ``filled'', (both for aesthetic and economic reasons) stand-alone
figures may traditionally be placed on pages in the document far away from the
main text that refers to them. \LaTeX\ and \TeX\ tend to encourage this
``drifting away'' of graphics for technical reasons.

When a graphic is inlined, it will more or less automatically be linked with
the main text in the sense that the labels of the graphic will be implicitly
explained by the surrounding text. Also, the main text will typically make it
clear what the graphic is about and what is shown.

Quite differently, a stand-alone figure will often be viewed at a time when the
main text that this graphic belongs to either has not yet been read or has been
read some time ago. For this reason, you should follow the following guidelines
when creating stand-alone figures:
%
\begin{itemize}
    \item Stand-alone figures should have a caption than should make them
        ``understandable by themselves''.

        For example, suppose a graphic shows an example of the different
        stages of a quicksort algorithm. Then the figure's caption should, at
        the very least, inform the reader that ``the figure shows the
        different stages of the quicksort algorithm introduced on page xyz''.
        and not just ``Quicksort algorithm''.
    \item A good caption adds as much context information as possible. For
        example, you could say: ``The figure shows the different stages of
        the quicksort algorithm introduced on page xyz. In the first line,
        the pivot element 5 is chosen. This causes\dots'' While this
        information can also be given in the main text, putting it in the
        caption will ensure that the context is kept. Do not feel afraid of a
        5-line caption. (Your editor may hate you for this. Consider hating
        them back.)
    \item Reference the graphic in your main text as in ``for an example of
        quicksort `in action', see Figure~2.1 on page xyz''.
    \item Most books on style and typography recommend that you do not use
        abbreviations as in ``Fig.~2.1'' but write ``Figure~2.1''.

        The main argument against abbreviations is that ``a period is too
        valuable to waste it on an abbreviation''. The idea is that a period
        will make the reader assume that the sentence ends after ``Fig'' and
        it takes a ``conscious backtracking'' to realize that the sentence
        did not end after all.

        The argument in favor of abbreviations is that they save space.

        Personally, I am not really convinced by either argument. On the one
        hand, I have not yet seen any hard evidence that abbreviations slow
        readers down. On the other hand, abbreviating all ``Figure'' by
        ``Fig.'' is most unlikely to save even a single line in most documents.
        I avoid abbreviations.
\end{itemize}


\subsection{Consistency Between Graphics and Text}

Perhaps the most common ``mistake'' people do when creating graphics (remember
that a ``mistake'' in design is always just ``ignorance'') is to have a
mismatch between the way their graphics look and the way their text looks.

It is quite common that authors use several different programs for creating the
graphics of a paper. An author might produce some plots using \textsc{gnuplot},
a diagram using \textsc{xfig}, and include an |.eps| graphic a coauthor
contributed using some unknown program. All these graphics will, most likely,
use different line widths, different fonts, and have different sizes. In
addition, authors often use options like |[height=5cm]| when including graphics
to scale them to some ``nice size''.

If the same approach were taken to writing the main text, every section would
be written in a different font at a different size. In some sections all
theorems would be underlined, in another they would be printed all in uppercase
letters, and in another in red. In addition, the margins would be different on
each page. Readers and editors would not tolerate a text if it were written in
this fashion, but with graphics they often have to.

To create consistency between graphics and text, stick to the following
guidelines:
%
\begin{itemize}
    \item Do not scale graphics.

        This means that when generating graphics using an external program,
        create them ``at the right size''.
    \item Use the same font(s) both in graphics and the body text.
    \item Use the same line width in text and graphics.

        The ``line width'' for normal text is the width of the stem of letters
        like T{}. For \TeX, this is usually $0.4\,\mathrm{pt}$. However, some
        journals will not accept graphics with a normal line width below
        $0.5\,\mathrm{pt}$.
    \item When using colors, use a consistent color coding in the text and in
        graphics. For example, if red is supposed to alert the reader to
        something in the main text, use red also in graphics for important
        parts of the graphic. If blue is used for structural elements like
        headlines and section titles, use blue also for structural elements
        of your graphic.

        However, graphics may also use a logical intrinsic color
        coding. For example, no matter what colors you normally use, readers
        will generally assume, say, that the color green as ``positive, go,
        ok'' and red as ``alert, warning, action''.
\end{itemize}

Creating consistency when using different graphic programs is almost
impossible. For this reason, you should consider sticking to a single graphics
program.


\subsection{Labels in Graphics}

Almost all graphics will contain labels, that is, pieces of text that explain
parts of the graphics. When placing labels, stick to the following guidelines:
%
\begin{itemize}
    \item Follow the rule of consistency when placing labels. You should do
        so in two ways: First, be consistent with the main text, that is, use
        the same font as the main text also for labels. Second, be consistent
        between labels, that is, if you format some labels in some particular
        way, format all labels in this way.
    \item In addition to using the same fonts in text and graphics, you
        should also use the same notation. For example, if you write $1/2$ in
        your main text, also use ``$1/2$'' as labels in graphics, not
        ``0.5''. A $\pi$ is a ``$\pi$'' and not ``$3.141$''. Finally,
        $\mathrm e^{-\mathrm i \pi}$ is ``$\mathrm e^{-\mathrm i \pi}$'', not
        ``$-1$'', let alone ``-1''.
    \item Labels should be legible. They should not only have a reasonably
        large size, they also should not be obscured by lines or other text.
        This also applies to labels of lines and text \emph{behind} the
        labels.
    \item Labels should be ``in  place''. Whenever there is enough space,
        labels should be placed next to the thing they label. Only if
        necessary, add a (subdued) line from the label to the labeled object.
        Try to avoid labels that only reference explanations in external
        legends. Reader have to jump back and forth between the explanation and
        the object that is described.
    \item Consider subduing ``unimportant'' labels using, for example, a gray
        color. This will keep the focus on the actual graphic.
\end{itemize}


\subsection{Plots and Charts}

One of the most frequent kind of graphics, especially in scientific papers, are
\emph{plots}. They come in a large variety, including simple line plots,
parametric plots, three dimensional plots, pie charts, and many more.

Unfortunately, plots are notoriously hard to get right. Partly, the default
settings of programs like \textsc{gnuplot} or Excel are to blame for this since
these programs make it very convenient to create bad plots.

The first question you should ask yourself when creating a plot is: Are there
enough data points to merit a plot? If the answer is ``not really'', use a
table.

A typical situation where a plot is unnecessary is when people present a few
numbers in a bar diagram. Here is a real-life example: At the end of a seminar
a lecturer asked the participants for feedback. Of the 50 participants, 30
returned the feedback form. According to the feedback, three participants
considered the seminar ``very good'', nine considered it ``good'', ten ``ok'',
eight ``bad'', and no one thought that the seminar was ``very bad''.

A simple way of summing up this information is the following table:

\medskip
\begin{tabular}{lp{3.75cm}r}
  \emph{Rating given} & \raggedright\emph{Participants (out of 50) who gave this rating} &
  \emph{Percentage} \\[1.75em]
  ``very good'' & \hfil\hphantom{0}3\hfil & \hphantom{0}6\% \\
  ``good'' & \hfil\hphantom{0}9\hfil & 18\% \\
  ``ok'' & \hfil10\hfil & 20\% \\
  ``bad'' & \hfil\hphantom{0}8\hfil & 16\% \\
  ``very bad'' & \hfil\hphantom{0}0\hfil & \hphantom{0}0\% \\[2mm]
  none & \hfil20\hfil & 40\% \\
\end{tabular}

\bigskip
What the lecturer did was to visualize the data using a 3D bar diagram. It
looked like this (except that in reality the numbers where typeset using some
extremely low-resolution bitmap font and were near-unreadable):

\bigskip
\par
\begin{tikzpicture}[y=0.03cm,z=3mm]
  \foreach \y in {0,20,40,60,80,100}
    \draw[dashed] (0,\y,0) node[left] {\y} -- (0,\y,1)  -- (6,\y,1);

  \draw (0,0,0) -- (0,100,0)  (0,0,1) -- (0,100,1);
  \draw (0,0,0) -- (6,0,0);

  \foreach \x/\xtext/\height in {1/very good/10,2/good/30,3/ok/33,4/bad/27,5/very bad/0}
  {
    \draw (\x,0) node[rotate=90,anchor=east] {\xtext};

    \begin{scope}[xshift=\x cm]

    \filldraw[fill=blue!50] (-.3,0,0) rectangle (.3,\height,0);
    \filldraw[fill=blue!30] (.3,0,0) -- (.3,0,1) -- (.3,\height,1) -- (.3,\height,0) --cycle;
    \filldraw[fill=blue!20] (-.3,\height,0) -- (.3,\height,0) --
    (.3,\height,1) -- (-.3,\height,1) --cycle;
    \end{scope}
  }
\end{tikzpicture}
\bigskip

Both the table and the ``plot'' have about the same size. If your first thought
is ``the graphic looks nicer than the table'', try to answer the following
questions based on the information in the table or in the graphic:
%
\begin{enumerate}
    \item How many participants were there?
    \item How many participants returned the feedback form?
    \item What percentage of the participants returned the feedback form?
    \item How many participants checked ``very good''?
    \item What percentage out of all participants checked ``very good''?
    \item Did more than a quarter of the participants check ``bad'' or ``very
        bad''?
    \item What percentage of the participants that returned the form checked
        ``very good''?
\end{enumerate}

Sadly, the graphic does not allow us to answer \emph{a single one of these
questions}. The table answers all of them directly, except for the last one. In
essence, the information density of the graphic is very close to zero. The
table has a much higher information density; despite the fact that it uses
quite a lot of white space to present a few numbers. Here is the list of things
that went wrong with the 3D-bar diagram:
%
\begin{itemize}
    \item The whole graphic is dominated by irritating background lines.
    \item It is not clear what the numbers at the left mean; presumably
        percentages, but it might also be the absolute number of
        participants.
    \item The labels at the bottom are rotated, making them hard to read.

        (In the real presentation that I saw, the text was rendered at a very
        low resolution with about 10 by 6 pixels per letter with wrong
        kerning, making the rotated text almost impossible to read.)
    \item The third dimension adds complexity to the graphic without adding
        information.
    \item The three dimensional setup makes it much harder to gauge the
        height of the bars correctly. Consider the ``bad'' bar. Is the number
        this bar stands for more than 20 or less? While the front of the bar
        is below the 20 line, the back of the bar (which counts) is above.
    \item It is impossible to tell which  numbers are represented by the
        bars. Thus, the bars needlessly hide the information these bars are
        all about.
    \item What do the bar heights add up to? Is it 100\% or 60\%?
    \item Does the bar for ``very bad'' represent 0 or~1?
    \item Why are the bars blue?
\end{itemize}

You might argue that in the example the exact numbers are not important for the
graphic. The important things is the ``message'', which is that there are more
``very good'' and ``good'' ratings than ``bad'' and ``very bad''. However, to
convey this message either use a sentence that says so or use a graphic that
conveys this message more clearly:

\medskip
\par
\begin{tikzpicture}
  \colorlet{good}{green!75!black}
  \colorlet{bad}{red}
  \colorlet{neutral}{black!60}
  \colorlet{none}{white}

  \node[align=center,text width=3cm]{Ratings given by 50~participants};

  \begin{scope}[line width=4mm,rotate=270]
    \draw[good]          (-123:2cm) arc (-123:-101:2cm);
    \draw[good!60!white] (-36:2cm) arc (-36:-101:2cm);
    \draw[neutral]       (-36:2cm) arc (-36:36:2cm);
    \draw[bad!60!white]  (36:2cm)  arc (36:93:2cm);

    \newcount\mycount
    \foreach \angle in {0,72,...,3599}
    {
      \mycount=\angle\relax
      \divide\mycount by 10\relax
      \draw[black!15,thick] (\the\mycount:18mm) -- (\the\mycount:22mm);
    }

    \draw (0:2.2cm) node[below] {``ok'': 10 (20\%)};
    \draw (165:2.2cm) node[above] {none: 20 (40\%)};
    \draw (-111:2.2cm) node[left] {``very good'': 3 (6\%)};
    \draw (-68:2.2cm) node[left] {``good'': 9 (18\%)};
    \draw (65:2.2cm) node[right] {``bad'': 8 (16\%)};
    \draw (93:2.2cm) node[right] {``very bad'': 0 (0\%)};
  \end{scope}
  \draw[gray] (0,0) circle (2.2cm) circle (1.8cm);
\end{tikzpicture}

\bigskip
The above graphic has about the same information density as the table (about
the same size and the same numbers are shown). In addition, one can directly
``see'' that there are more good or very good ratings than bad ones. One can
also ``see'' that the number of people who gave no rating at all is not
negligible, which is quite common for feedback forms.

Charts are not always a good idea. Let us look at an example that I redrew from
a pie chart in \emph{Die Zeit}, June 4th, 2005:

\bigskip
\par
\begin{tikzpicture}
  \begin{scope}[xscale=3.2,yscale=1.2]

    \sffamily
    \coordinate (right border) at (2.0cm,-1.7cm);
    \coordinate (left border)  at (-2.5cm,2.1cm);

    \fill[black!25] ([xshift=-2mm,yshift=1.1cm]left border) rectangle ([xshift=2mm,yshift=-.3cm]right border);

    \node[below right,text width=10cm,inner sep=0pt] at ([yshift=.9cm,xshift=-1mm]left border)
    { {\color{black!75} \Large Kohle ist am wichtigsten}\\
      Energiemix bei der deutschen Stromerzeugung 2004};

    \filldraw[draw=gray,fill=white] ([xshift=-1mm]left border) node[below right,black]
      {\footnotesize Gesamte Netto-Stromerzeugung in Prozent, in
        Milliarden Kilowattstunden (Mrd.\ kWh)}
      rectangle ([xshift=1mm]right border);

    % The 3D stuff
    \pgfdeclarehorizontalshading{zeit}{100bp}
    {color(0pt)=(black);
      color(25bp)=(black);
      color(37bp)=(white);
      color(50bp)=(black);
      color(62bp)=(white);
      color(75bp)=(black);
      color(100bp)=(black)}

    \shadedraw[very thin,shading=zeit,yshift=-1.5mm] (0,0) circle (1cm);

    \fill[green!20!gray]   (0,0) -- (90:1cm) arc (90:-5:1cm);
    \fill[white!20!gray]   (0,0) -- (-5:1cm) arc (-5:-105:1cm);
    \fill[orange!20!gray]  (0,0) -- (-105:1cm) arc (-105:-180:1cm);
    \fill[orange!60!white] (0,0) -- (180:1cm) arc (180:150:1cm);
    \fill[black!75!white]  (0,0) -- (150:1cm) arc (150:145:1cm);
    \fill[blue!90!white]   (0,0) -- (145:1cm) arc (145:135:1cm);
    \fill[blue!50!white]   (0,0) -- (135:1cm) arc (135:92:1cm);
    \fill[yellow!50!black] (0,0) -- (92:1cm) arc (92:90:1cm);

    \begin{scope}[very thin]
      \draw (0,0) -- (90:1cm);
      \draw (0,0) -- (-5:1cm);
      \draw (0,0) -- (-105:1cm);
      \draw (0,0) -- (-180:1cm);
      \draw (0,0) -- (150:1cm);
      \draw (0,0) -- (145:1cm);
      \draw (0,0) -- (135:1cm);
      \draw (0,0) -- (92:1cm);

      \draw(0,0) circle (1cm);
    \end{scope}

    \node (Regenerative)   at (115:.75cm)  {\bfseries 9,4\%};
    \node (Kernenergie)    at (30:.5cm)   {\bfseries 27,8\%};
    \node (Braunkohle)     at (-45:.6cm)  {\bfseries 25,6\%};
    \node (Steinkohle)     at (-135:.6cm) {\bfseries 22,3\%};
    \node (Erdgas)         at (168:.75cm) {\bfseries 10,4\%};
    \coordinate (Mineral)  at (147:.9cm);
    \coordinate (Sonstige) at (140:.9cm);

    \small
    \draw (Regenerative.north) |- ([yshift=.25cm]Regenerative.north -| right border) coordinate (Regenerative label);
    \draw (91:.9cm) |- (Regenerative label);
    \node[above left] at (Regenerative label) {Regenerative\
      {\footnotesize (53,7 kWh)/davon} Wind \textbf{4,4\%}  \footnotesize (25,0 kWh)};

    \draw (Kernenergie.base east) -- (Kernenergie.base east -| right border) coordinate (Kernenergie label);
    \node[above left] at (Kernenergie label) {Kernenergie};
    \node[below left] at (Kernenergie label) {\footnotesize (158,4 kWh)};

    \draw (Braunkohle.south) |- ([yshift=-.75cm]Braunkohle.south -| right border) coordinate (Braunkohle label);
    \node[above left] at (Braunkohle label) {Braunkohle\ \ \footnotesize (146,0 kWh)};

    \draw (Steinkohle.south) |- ([yshift=-.75cm]Steinkohle.south -| left border) coordinate (Steinkohle label);
    \node[above right] at (Steinkohle label) {Steinkohle\ \ \footnotesize (127,1 kWh)};

    \draw (Erdgas.base west) -- (Erdgas.base west -| left border) coordinate (Erdgas label);
    \node[above right] at (Erdgas label) {Erdgas\ \ \footnotesize (59,2 kWh)};

    \draw (Mineral) -- (Mineral -| left border) coordinate (Mineral label);
    \node[above right] at (Mineral label) {Mineral\"olprodukte\ \
      \footnotesize (9,2 kWh) \  \ \normalsize\textbf{1,6\%}};

    \draw (Sonstige) |- (Regenerative label -| left border) coordinate (Sonstige label);
    \node[above right] at (Sonstige label) {Sonstige\ \
      \footnotesize (16,5 kWh) \hskip1.5cm\
      \normalsize\textbf{2,9\%}};
  \end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}

This graphic has been redrawn in \tikzname, but the original looks almost
exactly the same.

At first sight, the graphic looks ``nice and informative'', but there are a lot
of things that went wrong:
%
\begin{itemize}
    \item The chart is three dimensional. However, the shadings add nothing
        ``information-wise'', at best, they distract.
    \item In a 3D-pie-chart the relative sizes are very strongly distorted.
        For example, the area taken up by the gray color of ``Braunkohle'' is
        larger than the area taken up by the green color of ``Kernenergie''
        \emph{despite the fact that the percentage of Braunkohle is less than
        the percentage of Kernenergie}.
    \item The 3D-distortion gets worse for small areas. The area of
        ``Regenerative'' somewhat larger  than the area of ``Erdgas''. The
        area of ``Wind'' is slightly smaller than the area of
        ``Mineral\"olprodukte'' \emph{although the percentage of Wind is
        nearly three times larger than the percentage of
        Mineral\"olprodukte.}

        In the last case, the different sizes are only partly due to
        distortion. The designer(s) of the original graphic have also made
        the ``Wind'' slice too small, even taking distortion into
        account. (Just compare the size of ``Wind'' to ``Regenerative'' in
        general.)
    \item According to its caption, this chart is supposed to inform us that
        coal was the most important energy source in Germany in 2004.
        Ignoring the strong distortions caused by the superfluous and
        misleading 3D-setup, it takes quite a while for this message to get
        across.

        Coal as an energy source is split up into two slices: one for
        ``Steinkohle'' and one for ``Braunkohle'' (two different kinds of
        coal). When you add them up, you see that the whole lower half of
        the pie chart is taken up by coal.

        The two areas for the different kinds of coal are not visually
        linked at all. Rather, two different colors are used, the labels are
        on different sides of the graphic. By comparison, ``Regenerative''
        and ``Wind'' are very closely linked.
    \item The color coding of the graphic follows no logical pattern at all.
        Why is nuclear energy green? Regenerative energy is light blue,
        ``other sources'' are blue. It seems more like a joke that the area
        for ``Braunkohle'' (which literally translates to ``brown coal'') is
        stone gray, while the area for ``Steinkohle'' (which literally
        translates to ``stone coal'') is brown.
    \item The area with the lightest color is used for ``Erdgas''. This area
        stands out most because of the brighter color. However, for this
        chart ``Erdgas'' is not really important at all.
\end{itemize}
%
Edward Tufte calls graphics like the above ``chart junk''. (I am happy to
announce, however, that \emph{Die Zeit} has stopped using 3D pie charts and
their information graphics have got somewhat better.)

Here are a few recommendations that may help you avoid producing chart junk:
%
\begin{itemize}
    \item Do not use 3D pie charts. They are \emph{evil}.
    \item Consider using a table instead of a pie chart.
    \item Do not apply colors randomly; use them to direct the readers's
        focus and to group things.
    \item Do not use background patterns, like a crosshatch or diagonal
        lines, instead of colors. They distract. Background patterns in
        information graphics are \emph{evil}.
\end{itemize}


\subsection{Attention and Distraction}

Pick up your favorite fiction novel and have a look at a typical page. You will
notice that the page is very uniform. Nothing is there to distract the reader
while reading; no large headlines, no bold text, no large white areas. Indeed,
even when the author does wish to emphasize something, this is done using
italic letters. Such letters blend nicely with the main text -- at a distance
you will not be able to tell whether a page contains italic letters, but you
would notice a single bold word immediately. The reason novels are typeset this
way is the following paradigm: Avoid distractions.

Good typography (like good organization) is something you do \emph{not} notice.
The job of typography is to make reading the text, that is, ``absorbing'' its
information content, as effortless as possible. For a novel, readers absorb the
content by reading the text line-by-line, as if they were listening to someone
telling the story. In this situation anything on the page that distracts the
eye from  going quickly and evenly from line to line will make the text harder
to read.

Now, pick up your favorite weekly magazine or newspaper and have a look at a
typical page. You will notice that there is quite a lot ``going on'' on the
page. Fonts are used at different sizes and in different arrangements, the text
is organized in narrow columns, typically interleaved with pictures. The reason
magazines are typeset in this way is another paradigm: Steer attention.

Readers will not read a magazine like a novel. Instead of reading a magazine
line-by-line, we use headlines and short abstracts to check whether we want to
read a certain article or not. The job of typography is to steer our attention
to these abstracts and headlines, first. Once we have decided that we want to
read an article, however, we no longer tolerate distractions, which is why the
main text of articles is typeset exactly the same way as a novel.

The two principles ``avoid distractions'' and ``steer attention'' also apply to
graphics. When you design a graphic, you should eliminate everything that will
``distract the eye''. At the same time, you should try to actively help the
reader ``through the graphic'' by using fonts/colors/line widths to highlight
different parts.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of things that can distract readers:
%
\begin{itemize}
    \item Strong contrasts will always be registered first by the eye. For
        example, consider the following two grids:

        \medskip\par
        \begin{tikzpicture}[x=40pt,y=40pt]
            \draw[step=10pt,gray] (0,0) grid +(1,1);
            \draw[step=2pt]      (2,0) grid +(1,1);
        \end{tikzpicture}

        \medskip
        Even though the left grid comes first in English reading order, the
        right one is much more likely to be seen first: The white-to-black
        contrast is higher than the gray-to-white contrast. In addition,
        there are more ``places'' adding to the overall contrast in the right
        grid.

        Things like grids and, more generally, help lines usually should not
        grab the attention of the readers and, hence, should be typeset with
        a low contrast to the background. Also, a loosely-spaced grid is less
        distracting than a very closely-spaced grid.
    \item Dashed lines create many points at which there is black-to-white
        contrast. Dashed or dotted lines can be very distracting and, hence,
        should be avoided in general.

        Do not use different dashing patterns to differentiate curves in
        plots. You lose data points this way and the eye is not particularly
        good at ``grouping things according to a dashing pattern''. The eye
        is \emph{much} better at grouping things according to colors.
    \item Background patterns filling an area using  diagonal lines or
        horizontal and vertical lines or just dots are almost always
        distracting and, usually, serve no real purpose.
    \item Background images and shadings distract and only seldom add
        anything of importance to a graphic.
    \item Cute little clip arts can easily draw attention away from the data.
\end{itemize}
