Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2008/09 - Gruppe 07 - Aufgabe 3: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
[[Image:Cowsntrees.jpg|600px]]<br> | [[Image:Cowsntrees.jpg|600px]]<br> | ||
=== Correction === | |||
In the following changed graph | In the following changed graph the destruction of the rainforest has been emphasized, using pictograms instead of a pie chart. Though this might stand in conflict with the "use-less-non-data" philosophy in order to make the graph simple and easy to understand, it is easier to get the message of the graph at first glance without having to look at the caption. The original graph was used by greenpeace and for The lines in the changed graph were used to make the differentiation of the different years more obvious. | ||
The lack of data could not be fixed, but with using the year dates more as titles instead of a timeline the difference between them should be less bothering. The number of trees as well as the number of cows stand for precise units. One tree represents 100.000 square kilometres and one cow represents 500.000 metric tons. | |||
=== Resources === | === Resources === | ||
Revision as of 13:51, 9 December 2008
Original Graphic
What's for dinner
Critics
A first look at the graph "What's for dinner" does not reveal a lot about the information presented in the graph. The title, which should summarize the graph in short has nothing to do with the message of the image. To get the meaning you first have to read the small printing underneath the title, explaining about the connection between the destruction of the rainforest to provide more land for the grazing of cattle. Even now, knowing what is supposed to be shown, one could start thinking about the advantages of food production, having in mind that a high percentage of the worlds population is starving and in the need of food. This feeling is reinforced looking at the delicious steaks being shown in the graph. On the other side the destruction of a vast amount of rainforest does not evoke any compassion at all. It is displayed by a sphere, which is at first filled with about 1/3th and getting a bit less filled in the other representations, but only coming close to 1/4th, which does not seam like a noticeable loss of rainforest. Also it is not obvious what the sphere stands for, it could be the world, or Brazil, or something completely different. So overall the message that is supposed to be sent with this graph is confusing.
The graph contains mostly non-data-ink, there are a lot of images, lines and text which are not necessary to present the data in question. It is very confusing to have a change in scale, regarding the time periods between the data. The fact that the first time segment spans 20 years and the second time segment only spans 15 years makes it hard to take the graph seriously. To really get the information, one has to tilt his or her head in order to find out which scales the data is measured in, which is in fact in two different scales, metric tons on the one hand, square kilometres one the other. The labelling of the two different kinds of data is not only written vertically, but it also does not stick out as important. Each group of data has another type of labelling, giving information about the amount of data shown in each picture. The labelling of the steaks easily gets lost in the big picture. This is mainly because it is written in the same colour as the steaks, but is much smaller as they are. The labelling of the rainforest on the other hand also does not stick out too much, but is a bit more obvious than the labelling of the steaks. This is due to the fact, that the numbers are directly on the spheres and the color is a bright red which easily sticks out.
The used image representation is, as discussed before poorly chosen. The units of steaks shown in the images stand in no connection with the data they are supposed to represent. There is a flag sticking in one of the steaks for no obvious reason, which is useless non-data-ink. And the drastic change of existing rainforest is not obvious using a pie diagram, because this form of representation does not make it easy to notice the change over time. There are a few obvious and less obvious points the desperately need to be changed in order to impress the viewer.
- By following [Few, 2004a] we highlight the data through a desing process:
- Reducing the non data ink
- Subtract unnecessary non-data ink:
- De-emphasize and refgularize the data ink:
- Enhancing the data ink
- Subtract unnecessary data ink
- Emphasize the most important data ink
- Reducing the non data ink
Changed Graphic
Correction
In the following changed graph the destruction of the rainforest has been emphasized, using pictograms instead of a pie chart. Though this might stand in conflict with the "use-less-non-data" philosophy in order to make the graph simple and easy to understand, it is easier to get the message of the graph at first glance without having to look at the caption. The original graph was used by greenpeace and for The lines in the changed graph were used to make the differentiation of the different years more obvious.
The lack of data could not be fixed, but with using the year dates more as titles instead of a timeline the difference between them should be less bothering. The number of trees as well as the number of cows stand for precise units. One tree represents 100.000 square kilometres and one cow represents 500.000 metric tons.
Resources
- [Few, 2004a]:Stephen Few, Show Me the Numbers: Designing Tables and Graphs to Enlighten, Analytics Press, 2004, Chapter 7 - General Design for Communication.