These suggestions aren't very good suggestions for making charts in general. Instead they seem to be biased for an audience which doesn't want to parse and understand your data but simply be wowed by hand-waving and feel quantitative reassurance in that belief.
John Tukey (I believe) suggested that there were two broad classes of charts: exploratory and descriptive. Exploratory (Tufte style) seek to visually describe as many variances in your data and their relations both to one another and the marginal totals. With all this at hand, a careful analysis may reveal patterns and idiosyncrasies in your data. Descriptive comes later, once you know what you want to present, and seeks to maximize the visibility of whatever detail you're highlighting while providing appropriate context. It's the kind of statistic that "lies" via omission (or, rather, selective attention) but it also leaves the hints that let a careful reader suspect a larger picture.
Godin's suggestions don't really produce either of these though. Without contextualization his graphs are simply ethos arguments wrapped up in a white lab coat.
Not to rag on him: I'm sure he knows this, too. These aren't really suggestions for good graphs but instead for good presentation of technical matters to non-technical audiences: an endeavor which is probably doomed to live as a half-lie.
John Tukey (I believe) suggested that there were two broad classes of charts: exploratory and descriptive. Exploratory (Tufte style) seek to visually describe as many variances in your data and their relations both to one another and the marginal totals. With all this at hand, a careful analysis may reveal patterns and idiosyncrasies in your data. Descriptive comes later, once you know what you want to present, and seeks to maximize the visibility of whatever detail you're highlighting while providing appropriate context. It's the kind of statistic that "lies" via omission (or, rather, selective attention) but it also leaves the hints that let a careful reader suspect a larger picture.
Godin's suggestions don't really produce either of these though. Without contextualization his graphs are simply ethos arguments wrapped up in a white lab coat.
Not to rag on him: I'm sure he knows this, too. These aren't really suggestions for good graphs but instead for good presentation of technical matters to non-technical audiences: an endeavor which is probably doomed to live as a half-lie.