Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2005/06 - Gruppe G8 - Aufgabe 2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
|valign="top" bgcolor="#eeeeee"|legend | |valign="top" bgcolor="#eeeeee"|legend | ||
|valign="top" bgcolor="#eeeeee"|The legend is inconsistent<li> in its symbols<br><li>in its ranges (not continuous) | |valign="top" bgcolor="#eeeeee"|The legend is inconsistent<li> in its symbols<br><li>in its ranges (not continuous) | ||
|valign="top" bgcolor="#eeeeee"|The symbols are continuous and follow the rules for representing non-metric but ordinary classes of ranges [1][Miksch, 2005]<br> Moreover all | |valign="top" bgcolor="#eeeeee"|The symbols are continuous and follow the rules for representing non-metric but ordinary classes of ranges [1][Miksch, 2005]<br> Moreover all 5 symbols have evaluated out of the same basic symbol (snowflake), and are thus consistent.<br> Moreover the ranges which are represented by the symbols were made to descend into one another. | ||
|- | |||
|valign="top"|legend (symbols) | |||
|valign="top"|The root version, even though its symbols are inconsitent in shape and color, gives a rough impression where snow can be expected in a major amount. It provides the user with some sort of a rough overview about Idaho and the snowfall. This is information we thought is very useful. | |||
|valign="top"|The symbols now give a good impression where high amounts of snowfall can be expected. | |||
|- | |- | ||
|valign="top"|background (radial gradient) | |valign="top"|background (radial gradient) | ||
Line 24: | Line 28: | ||
|valign="top" bgcolor="#eeeeee"|background (map, the image) | |valign="top" bgcolor="#eeeeee"|background (map, the image) | ||
|valign="top" bgcolor="#eeeeee"|Keeps no information (for the data of snowfall) | |valign="top" bgcolor="#eeeeee"|Keeps no information (for the data of snowfall) | ||
|valign="top" bgcolor="#eeeeee"|Was exchanged by a satellite view of Idaho, giving | |valign="top" bgcolor="#eeeeee"|Was exchanged by a satellite view of Idaho, giving just the outer bounds of the state and the inner borders of the different districts. | ||
|- | |- | ||
|valign="top"|spot indicators (form) | |valign="top"|spot indicators (form) |
Revision as of 13:49, 1 November 2005
Poor Graphic
Corrected Graphic
Informational Content Comparison
Element | Poor Graphic | Worked Graphic |
---|---|---|
legend | The legend is inconsistent |
The symbols are continuous and follow the rules for representing non-metric but ordinary classes of ranges [1][Miksch, 2005] Moreover all 5 symbols have evaluated out of the same basic symbol (snowflake), and are thus consistent. Moreover the ranges which are represented by the symbols were made to descend into one another. |
legend (symbols) | The root version, even though its symbols are inconsitent in shape and color, gives a rough impression where snow can be expected in a major amount. It provides the user with some sort of a rough overview about Idaho and the snowfall. This is information we thought is very useful. | The symbols now give a good impression where high amounts of snowfall can be expected. |
background (radial gradient) | Is distracting the viewer, keeps no additional information. | Was omitted from the worked version. |
background (map, the image) | Keeps no information (for the data of snowfall) | Was exchanged by a satellite view of Idaho, giving just the outer bounds of the state and the inner borders of the different districts. |
spot indicators (form) | Are inconsistent and the fourth one does not give a good idea where the center actually is (asymetric). | The new symbol has a clear center point, representing the spot on the map where the viewer can expect the place named. |
spot indicators (color) | The spot indicators are all of a different color, which can not at all be related to the amount of snow it should represent. | The color keeps no informations, so the attribute is dumped. |
spot description (text) | The text is in white, which has a too low contrast most of the time due to the irregular color of the background image. | The text is written in simple black color. |
spot description (background) | Contrast is not too good with the background of the boxes. | Whitening the background beneath the text for raising the contrast value for extra clear reading. On the other hand this is keeping the context (background) reasonable recognizeable. [2] |
[1] [Miksch, 2005] Basic Understanding of Information Visualisation, Course Transparencies, p.29, Retrieved at: October 2005.
http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/~silvia/wien/vu-infovis/PDF-Files/InfoVis-0-Defs.pdf
[2] [Miksch, 2005] Focus + Kontext, Course Transparencies, p.5 ff, Retrieved at: October 2005.
http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/~silvia/wien/vu-infovis/PDF-Files/InfoVis-1.pdf