No.

chart junk is just the ‘ugly’ extreme of a ‘Superfluous/Redundant Elements Continuum’ where eye candy sits on the other end.

like you said, examples on Junk Charts are great examples of the former, and GOOD transparencies of the latter.

then, imagine a different set of axes, the ‘Meaningfulness Continuum’ which describes how well a visualisation communicates a particular meaning/purpose/story/narrative/intent.

if there are design elements/features which help build the story, then they are no longer chart junk or eye candy.

Design embellishment is not necessarily bad, if it serves to help attract readers without detracting from the underlying story. But the problem with many infographics I see is that the embellishments are more prominent than the story, and often crowd it so much that not much story is told.

The yardstick of success for any great infographic should be “has this done the best job possible of attracting and then informing/engaging the audience?”…and not “does this look cool, or what?”

Don’t focus overly on the sizzle, to the exclusion of the sausage.

These are from Pg 27 of Horton, W. (1991). Illustrating Computer Documentation: the Art of Presenting Information Graphically on Paper and Online. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Unfortunately, many websites and blogs continually post examples of what you might call “eye candy”. I can appreciate some of the hard work and artistic endeavors that graphic designers put into creating some visually appealing images. But first and foremost they are mostly just that: interesting images (or I guess “information aesthetics” as you suggest). In these cases then, let’s recognize them just as examples of art or fun graphic design, and not as examples of good charts or data visualizations.

In many cases (particularly with the folks at GOOD…the recent one on crime statistics is pertinent example), charts contain simply too much extraneous, distracting and misleading (whether purposefully so or not) graphic elements or images. Really these are just bells and whistles that at best distract the viewer from the data, or at worst skew the data for the viewer.

So for me, it is hard for me then to differentiate between what is intended as “eye candy” and chartjunk. They are one in the same and should be avoided in good examples of charts. Data presented simply, accurately and cleanly in a well-designed chart will tell a story sufficiently.