Tufte highlights the relevance of how multiple small designs lead to comparisons that enrich the data being presented. By drafting out multiple, sequential details, the audience is giving context in the form of change.

His train example, which accentuate’s the meaning behind different light signals for railroad employees I found personally very effective. The thin lines of the train, in contrasts with the dots of color created a clear image. It also made the differences between frames clear. However, there were some different elements (white lights in the middle) that also showcased examples between frames and were not very clear at all. Their lack of color make them get lost within the complex shape of the train. Adding color to these or more accentuation would’ve grouped them with the other differences and made them more evident. Although I do like the train’s detail, another alternative would be to simplify it as well.

I liked his example of Linchestein’s New York mural painting. Antupit disects Linchestein’s work and showcases the contrast between the inspirations behind the work and the actual mural. I would’ve enjoyed to see a little more marked connection between both components. The dotted lines they use to trace the inspirations to the mural are not very noticeable and sometimes get lost. I would’ve liked to be very clear on what part of the mural the inspiration was referring to, so I would’ve liked closer tracing.