Sumit: After I wrote that, I'm thinking of Gelman's compromise. A good solution would be to hide the statistical significance information behind a mouseover/clickthrough.

Sumit: Thanks for bringing this up. I didn't want to clutter up the original post with a comment on statistical significance. The post focuses only on the V corner of the Trifecta Checkup. The D corner is certainly worth investigating. The study is as usual tiny (I think n is 20 or 30), and nonrandom; however, the p-values are shockingly small because the signals are huge. I wouldn't trust the study unless it is replicable by other groups, with larger sample sizes and an improved sample selection. Just focusing on the Visual representation of the p-values for the moment. I see this as a tradeoff I'm unwilling to make. There is a price to pay for putting an additional detail onto the chart. If this were a two-treatment experiment, then I'd agree with your elegant solution of using grayscale on the dog icons. However, with a three-way analysis, there are three possible comparisons, meaning there are 2^3=8 possible combinations of statistical significance for each set of bars. The increase in complexity is not worth it.

Akiva/Robert: I think you are missing my point. Newspapers, printed matter, and now blogs form a record of human history. Yes, few people need to save these images but few people need to save the articles either. My point is that we save all the text but we take a nonchalant attitude towards saving the images and the data graphics. Screenshots are sufficient for my blogging use but unless there is a non-manual, systematic way of saving them and linking them to the articles, they are not really an archiving tool. Pessimism: I don't think it's Mike's problem to solve although if he can develop tools to help the archivists. This is more the archivist's or historian's job.

Berry: I deliberately made this post "negative" because I don't believe the teaching profession has taken up this challenge. What are the most common comments we hear from students who have taken Stats 101? "Boring", "hard", "didn't understand it", "didn't like it", "hated it", "glad it's over", etc. If we document every instance of poor statistical thinking-not to pick on newspapers but also on blogs, on talk shows, in business meetings- the list will be long.

Thanks for several readers for their feedback. I just posted a new version of the taxonomy diagram.

jonathan: if you click to one of my two earlier posts on this topic, I have a link to the published paper. One of Gelman's readers found the paper while Andrew found the poster presentation. I'm glad we have both because the published paper only contains relative numbers-you can't find any absolute counts and so you can't judge what's in there.

Mike: You'd be right (see my critique of my own chart below the chart!)

Thanks David. That would be their logic. If I were doing separate charts, I'd have selected different color schemes.