Chartjunk refers to all visual elements in charts and graphs that are not necessary to comprehend the information represented on the graph, or that distract the viewer from this information. Markings and visual elements can be called chartjunk if they are not part of the minimum set of visuals necessary to communicate the information understandably. Examples of unnecessary elements that might be called chartjunk include heavy or dark grid lines, unnecessary text, inappropriately complex or gimmicky font faces, ornamented chart axes, and display frames, pictures, backgrounds or icons within data graphs, ornamental shading and unnecessary dimensions. Another kind of chartjunk skews the depiction and makes it difficult to understand the real data being displayed. Examples of this type include items depicted out of scale to one another, noisy backgrounds making comparison between elements difficult in a chart or graph, and 3-D simulations in line and bar charts. The term chartjunk was coined by Edward Tufte in his 1983 book The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Tufte wrote: The term is relatively recent and is often associated with Tufte in other references. The concept is analogous to Adolf Loos's idea that ornament is a crime. Etymology The term chartjunk was first coined by Edward Tufte in 1983. The book was developed based on ideas and materials developed for a Princeton statistics course that Tufte co-taught with John Tukey. As a self-published book, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Tufte claims that good design is founded in minimalist design principles. Specifically, he states that "graphics reveal data" if they are designed with "graphical integrity." Tufte, through minimalist design principles, was committed to an objective and neutral values of science. Other researchers have argued that minimalism is not objective and is full of its own rhetoric and potential to bias. Tufte, in coining the term chartjunk, also made direct comments about a well-known designer at that time, Nigel Holmes. Nearly all those who produce graphics for mass publication are trained exclusively in the fine arts and have had little experience with the analysis of data. Such experiences are essential for achieving precision and grace in the presence of statistics... Those who get ahead are those who beautified data, never mind statistical integrity."Further, in his second published book, Envisioning Information, Tufte critiques Holmes' Diamonds chart:"Consider this unsavory exhibit at right – chockablock with cliché and stereotype, coarse humor, and a content-empty third dimension... Credibility