I found the stereoscopic pair of images very interesting, because even after staring at it for multiple minutes I couldn’t seem to see what I was supposed to see. It made me wonder what kind of viewers are more likely to be able to see the intended effect (maybe it has something to do with vision/eyesight?) and how it was used at all given that even experienced viewers often had trouble finding the right images.

The next section on representing data was much more confusing to me, and I found the sunspot example and the railroad example difficult to follow. However, I liked the air pollutant chart because it reminded me of the automatic 3D plots created in excel, and the fact that multiple graphs of similar structuere were placed side-by-side (“a small multiple”) made it easy to notice the changes across time.

I had conflicting thoughts on the “diamonds were a girl’s best friend” poster. Like the author, I didn’t particularly like the poster and thought the message that the poster was trying to send was unclear. However, I disagree with the author’s criticism that decorating a graph/source of information automatically makes it less trustworthy and is patronizing towards the viewer. I feel like there are graphs that add flourishes to numbers/information while still retaining the validity of their information, so it felt harsh to judge these creative displays as a group based on one bad example.