Wired thinks that Roy A. Gallant's 1950 classic science books need to be updated with 21st-century style and information. They're right, but while their artwork may be flashier and more accurate, it is not necessarily clearer. Take these two examples.
In the first one, you can try to see how earthquakes propagate through the entire planet in three dimensions. I say "try" because while the graphic looks very cool, the interpretation of all those information layers is not easy in 3D space. In this case, a classic bi-dimensional cut — using the latest scientific data — would do a much better job at explaining what is basically a symmetrical movement through the planet's core. The only better technique would be to add time through animation.
The slicing of Earth's atmosphere has the same problems. It may be fun, but not necessarily clearer than the old 2D version:
The crosscut would show distances more accurately, and the whole representation would be easier to interpret than the fake 3D video. Not to talk about one undeniable fact: I like the Flash Gordon spaceships better. [Wired]