Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2005/06 - Gruppe G8 - Aufgabe 2

From InfoVis:Wiki
Revision as of 20:41, 3 November 2005 by (talk)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Poor Graphic

Idaho Ski Resort Annual Snowfall (click on image for larger version)

Resulting Graphic

Annual Average Snowfall in Idaho - corrected graphic
[Seyfang, Fritz, Baldass, Schnabl, 2005]


Element Poor Graphic Worked Graphic
legend The legend is inconsistent
  • in its symbols
  • in its ranges (not continuous)
  • 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.
    legend (background) The legend has no explicit bakground. The legend now has a slight linear gradient from white (70% visible) to 100% visible white. This suggests the impression that the lower symbols (bigger) represent more snow.
    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.
    background (radial gradient) Is distracting the viewer, keeps no additional information. Was changed to a very light gray background to keep a contrast between the shape of the land (which is white in large parts as well).
    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 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 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]
    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.

    [1] [Miksch, 2005] Basic Understanding of Information Visualisation, Course Transparencies, p.29, Retrieved at: October 2005.

    [2] [Miksch, 2005] Focus + Kontext, Course Transparencies, p.5 ff, Retrieved at: October 2005.

    < G8
    << overview