Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2008/09 - Gruppe 09 - Aufgabe 3: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
(minor editing) |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*Headline | *Headline | ||
: | :The headline is badly formatted. It isnt well positioned and the text doesnt really explain what the graphics are all about. A short and precise title would help the viewer to get a first idea of what the graphics show. | ||
:"Biggest Drips" is completely unnecessary since it is no essential information. | :"Biggest Drips" is completely unnecessary since it is no essential information and should be dropped from the graphics therefore [Few, 2004a]. | ||
:"Annual abstractions of freshwater resources" is not a good choice | :For a short description of the graphics, "Annual abstractions of freshwater resources" is not a good choice either. The meaning of the graphics could be expressed in a more simple way/expression. | ||
*Sub-headline | *Sub-headline | ||
:Sub-headline contains two different units. | :The Sub-headline contains two different units: date and unit information. To avoid confusing the viewer, those should be merged or rearrangend. | ||
:"Mid-90's" is no exact year and | :"Mid-90's" is no exact year and may be a sign of bad research of data. | ||
:"Thousands of cubic meters per person" is a quite long description. | :"Thousands of cubic meters per person" is a quite long description. It could be abbreviated (1,000m³) or the unit of data could be changed to cubic meters (m³). Changing the unit would make it even easier to comprehend the data. For Denmark the viewer has to calcuate 0.19 * 1000 to get the actual water consumption. Changing the unit and writing 190 instead of 0.19 therefore makes a lot of sense. | ||
*Ink | *Ink | ||
:The data-ink ration is very bad - there is much ink but little data. | :The graphics contain way too much ink in general. The graphics for example need four(!) pages to fulfill an easy task: comparing one attribute of 20 countries. | ||
:The data-ink ration is very bad - there is much ink but little data. One should always try to reduce non-data ink to a minimum and enhance data-ink. [Few, 2004a] | |||
:The background is filled with | :The background is filled with too much (and same) ink. For example, gridlines, shades and little waves in the water. Those should all be dropped since they distract the viewer. [Few, 2004b] | ||
:Raindrops show proportions but overload the graphics | :Raindrops show proportions but overload the graphics. This is espacially true for image number four where the drip for the U.S. doesnt fit into the borders. | ||
*Colors | *Colors | ||
:Unimportant | :Unimportant data is much more emphasized (e.g. by colors) than important data. The difference between background and data should always be very distinct [Few, 2004a]. Therefore it is a bad idea to draw the background of the graphics in the same color tone as the data itself (blue). | ||
:Colors are not used well in general. Important data (numbers) are in white which is the least "powerful" color. | :Colors are not used well in general. Important data (numbers) are in white which is the least "powerful" color. [Few, 2004a] | ||
:There are too many different colors used | :There are too many different colors used. This is not useful because it distracts the viewer. [Few, 2004b] | ||
*Font-Size | *Font-Size | ||
:Graphics just use one | :Graphics just use one fontsize/-style for all text. Important parts of the data could be emphasized to help the viewer understand what the graphics want to tell. [Few, 2004a] | ||
:The scaling of numbers seems not well chosen. The page numbers at the bottom of the graphics for example, have the same font-size as the water consumption data. | |||
:The | |||
*Page numbers | *Page numbers | ||
:The numbers of the pages as well as the "back" and "next" buttons are | :The numbers of the pages as well as the "back" and "next" buttons are probably too big (font-size is the same as the important data). | ||
*Pages | *Pages | ||
:The table is divided into 4 different pages which leads to bad readability and comparability. | :The table is divided into 4 different pages which leads to bad readability and comparability. The data should be merged into one table by placing the different pages adjacent. Grouping connected data - according to [Few, 2004b] - is an essential part when organizing/enhancing data-ink. | ||
*Abbreviations | |||
:As pointed out in [Tufte, 1999], words should always be spelt out or at least described if an abbreviation is used. The terms OECD or U.S., even if they are quite common, should be described. | |||
*Highlighting | *Highlighting |
Revision as of 20:49, 9 December 2008
Aufgabenstellung
Zu beurteilende Grafik
Biggest Drips: Annual abstraction of treshwater resources
Critics on the Graphics
- Headline
- The headline is badly formatted. It isnt well positioned and the text doesnt really explain what the graphics are all about. A short and precise title would help the viewer to get a first idea of what the graphics show.
- "Biggest Drips" is completely unnecessary since it is no essential information and should be dropped from the graphics therefore [Few, 2004a].
- For a short description of the graphics, "Annual abstractions of freshwater resources" is not a good choice either. The meaning of the graphics could be expressed in a more simple way/expression.
- Sub-headline
- The Sub-headline contains two different units: date and unit information. To avoid confusing the viewer, those should be merged or rearrangend.
- "Mid-90's" is no exact year and may be a sign of bad research of data.
- "Thousands of cubic meters per person" is a quite long description. It could be abbreviated (1,000m³) or the unit of data could be changed to cubic meters (m³). Changing the unit would make it even easier to comprehend the data. For Denmark the viewer has to calcuate 0.19 * 1000 to get the actual water consumption. Changing the unit and writing 190 instead of 0.19 therefore makes a lot of sense.
- Ink
- The graphics contain way too much ink in general. The graphics for example need four(!) pages to fulfill an easy task: comparing one attribute of 20 countries.
- The data-ink ration is very bad - there is much ink but little data. One should always try to reduce non-data ink to a minimum and enhance data-ink. [Few, 2004a]
- The background is filled with too much (and same) ink. For example, gridlines, shades and little waves in the water. Those should all be dropped since they distract the viewer. [Few, 2004b]
- Raindrops show proportions but overload the graphics. This is espacially true for image number four where the drip for the U.S. doesnt fit into the borders.
- Colors
- Unimportant data is much more emphasized (e.g. by colors) than important data. The difference between background and data should always be very distinct [Few, 2004a]. Therefore it is a bad idea to draw the background of the graphics in the same color tone as the data itself (blue).
- Colors are not used well in general. Important data (numbers) are in white which is the least "powerful" color. [Few, 2004a]
- There are too many different colors used. This is not useful because it distracts the viewer. [Few, 2004b]
- Font-Size
- Graphics just use one fontsize/-style for all text. Important parts of the data could be emphasized to help the viewer understand what the graphics want to tell. [Few, 2004a]
- The scaling of numbers seems not well chosen. The page numbers at the bottom of the graphics for example, have the same font-size as the water consumption data.
- Page numbers
- The numbers of the pages as well as the "back" and "next" buttons are probably too big (font-size is the same as the important data).
- Pages
- The table is divided into 4 different pages which leads to bad readability and comparability. The data should be merged into one table by placing the different pages adjacent. Grouping connected data - according to [Few, 2004b] - is an essential part when organizing/enhancing data-ink.
- Abbreviations
- As pointed out in [Tufte, 1999], words should always be spelt out or at least described if an abbreviation is used. The terms OECD or U.S., even if they are quite common, should be described.
- Highlighting
- OECD average is not highlighted although is not a country (as other data).
Optimized Graphics
Improvements
- New Design
- More details
References
- [Few, 2004a]:Stephen Few, Show Me the Numbers: Designing Tables and Graphs to Enlighten, Analytics Press, 2004, Chapter 7 - General Design for Communication.
- [Few, 2004b]:Stephen Few, Elegance Through Simplicity, intelligent enterprise, Oct 16, 2004.
- [Tufte, 1999]:Edward R. Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Stanford, January 26, 1999.