You’re reading Signal vs. Noise, a publication about the web by 37signals since 1999.

Great quote!

This may be true if you have unlimited fidelity and space at your disposal. Otherwise, there is a point where you must show more data than the eye can perceive. And then you must edit.

I love a good edit.

This quote is from the classic “computer administrative debris” iPhone video.

Great quote!

So design is finding the balance between clarity and lossless data compression. That’s why it’s so hard.

Tufte is fun to quote, but the key thing that people overlook is this: he assumes that the recipient of information is educated and interested.

In those cases, when you are willing to dive deep and process ever more, then he’s right.

The rest of the time, he’s largely incorrect.

I disagree with this quote.

Most of the time clarify ends up meaning REMOVE detail. Period.

I like this quote very much. Thanks.

[quote] Clutter and overload are not attributes of information, they are failures of design.
[/quote]

When using Basecamp, the whole discussions section clutters up, as seen here. I marked the cluttered info yellow.

Double information since all the (non relevant) info is shown over at ‘History’ at the bottom of the page. Thus, I agree with Anonymous Coward: clarify means REMOVE detail. Period.

When presenting information in UI, adding one thing subtracts/distracts from something else. The iPhone Weather app (the app Tufte is demoing when he talks about adding detail to clarify) is a great example of this. I believe the idea is to give the mobile user information on the go. The idea that I can pick up my iPhone while having a conversation with a friend, see if it’s gonna rain the coming weekend, tuck the phone and continue the conversation as uninterrupted as possible. Any extra detail added to the screen to “clarify” demands that I have to adjust, skim, search, squint and breaks the flow.

I thoroughly agree with Seth’s comment.

@ Seth Godin wrote

Tufte is fun to quote, but the key thing that people overlook is this: he assumes that the recipient of information is educated and interested.

In those cases, when you are willing to dive deep and process ever more, then he’s right.

The rest of the time, he’s largely incorrect.

Presuming that an observer/consumer is always either educated/uneducated, interested/disinterested, (or, choose your NYT bestseller-worthy quick classification) is insulting and reckless. For example, how educated, interested and willing to ‘dive deep’ is the consumer of cigarette pack warnings who are the target of Tufte’s analysis at the image link here? http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/images/0000Kp-375.jpg

Be cautious of taking quotes out of context… Tufte would caution that each situation demands its own analysis… I’ve never known him to advocate for intentional crowding or extra detail without justification.