Teaching:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2009/10 - Gruppe 13 - Aufgabe 3: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
* The size of the circles and the growth rate (location on the y-axes and numbered value) alone don't really give you a hint, how the amount of production was in 2002. You can only use the size of the circles to compare this year's production of every company with all other. But wouldn't it also be interesting if you were able to compare the oil production for each company with its own production from 2002? Of course, the growth rate gives you exactly this information, but not in an eye-catching way. It would be, if you had a second circle for each company in the background (with the same center) in another color. Now we would have the size of the circles, that shows you the production amount, the second circle in the back, that gives you an idea how the production amount of each company has changed and the position on the diagram which makes it easy to compare the growth rates of one company with all others. The advantage of this redundant information is the easier way of comparison - the disadvantage is that it maybe makes the diagram even harder to understand at first ('cause there is one more information layer). | * The size of the circles and the growth rate (location on the y-axes and numbered value) alone don't really give you a hint, how the amount of production was in 2002. You can only use the size of the circles to compare this year's production of every company with all other. But wouldn't it also be interesting if you were able to compare the oil production for each company with its own production from 2002? Of course, the growth rate gives you exactly this information, but not in an eye-catching way. It would be, if you had a second circle for each company in the background (with the same center) in another color. Now we would have the size of the circles, that shows you the production amount, the second circle in the back, that gives you an idea how the production amount of each company has changed and the position on the diagram which makes it easy to compare the growth rates of one company with all others. The advantage of this redundant information is the easier way of comparison - the disadvantage is that it maybe makes the diagram even harder to understand at first ('cause there is one more information layer). | ||
*Beside the fact that the data presented is not easy to understand, it is not clear what information should be focused. The chart shows a comparison of the major oil producers with detailed written information about the situation of Total. This divides the chart logically and visually into two parts, which can confuse the message. I think in this case the | *Beside the fact that the data presented is not easy to understand, it is not clear what information should be focused. The chart shows a comparison of the major oil producers with detailed written information about the situation of Total. This divides the chart logically and visually into two parts, which can confuse the message. I think in this case the more important information should be an overview of all oil producers, which then can be referenced in a text where the situation of Total is explained in more detail. | ||
*Further, it may be criticized that the legends describing the circles are positioned on the right hand side and the numbers describing the percentage of growth are on the left. As most readers start to read from left to right, the focus is first on the percentage of growth. Then they go further on to check the names of the companies. But this is the wrong way, because the original question is about the companies and their growth and not about the growth. For this reason the reader lose time to get the information. In addition, the scale produces a lot of white space without information, as between ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell. | *Further, it may be criticized that the legends describing the circles are positioned on the right hand side and the numbers describing the percentage of growth are on the left. As most readers start to read from left to right, the focus is first on the percentage of growth. Then they go further on to check the names of the companies. But this is the wrong way, because the original question is about the companies and their growth and not about the growth. For this reason the reader lose time to get the information. In addition, the scale produces a lot of white space without information, as between ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell. | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
*As the sequence was defined by the scale, the companies are already in the right order. It also makes sense to use this order as group definition for the new data bar. The new data bar is now possible because the original circles are now replaced by bars, which are visually easier to compare. | *As the sequence was defined by the scale, the companies are already in the right order. It also makes sense to use this order as group definition for the new data bar. The new data bar is now possible because the original circles are now replaced by bars, which are visually easier to compare. | ||
* Now the chart intuitive communicates a clear message through a better presentation of the data, even less elements are used. For this the Data-Ink Ration improved a lot comparing the | * Now the chart intuitive communicates a clear message through a better presentation of the data, even less elements are used. For this the Data-Ink Ration improved a lot comparing the new version with the old version. | ||
Revision as of 19:30, 4 December 2009
Aufgabenstellung
Zu verbessernde Grafik
Ausarbeitung
Critics
- If you are not familiar with those kinds of diagrams, they are a little hard to read at a first glance. It took me a few minutes until I understood, that "Total" is a company. Therefore the graphic made no sense at first. Of course, if you have the graphics embedded in an article this confusion would not happen at all. But still, if you have to study a graphics in a news paper (and not a scientific paper) for one or two minutes, just to understand it, you may just skip it. So in the context of a simple news paper this diagram may be a little to complicated.
- The y-axes shows the growth rate of the companies. This is quite easy to understand. What could be a little irritating are the circles that represent the total production of the year. At a first glance it looks like the circles are related to values of the y-axes, but they are absolutely not (only the center of the circle is relevant). The size of the circle represents information which is absolutely independent from the y-axes.
- The size of the circles and the growth rate (location on the y-axes and numbered value) alone don't really give you a hint, how the amount of production was in 2002. You can only use the size of the circles to compare this year's production of every company with all other. But wouldn't it also be interesting if you were able to compare the oil production for each company with its own production from 2002? Of course, the growth rate gives you exactly this information, but not in an eye-catching way. It would be, if you had a second circle for each company in the background (with the same center) in another color. Now we would have the size of the circles, that shows you the production amount, the second circle in the back, that gives you an idea how the production amount of each company has changed and the position on the diagram which makes it easy to compare the growth rates of one company with all others. The advantage of this redundant information is the easier way of comparison - the disadvantage is that it maybe makes the diagram even harder to understand at first ('cause there is one more information layer).
- Beside the fact that the data presented is not easy to understand, it is not clear what information should be focused. The chart shows a comparison of the major oil producers with detailed written information about the situation of Total. This divides the chart logically and visually into two parts, which can confuse the message. I think in this case the more important information should be an overview of all oil producers, which then can be referenced in a text where the situation of Total is explained in more detail.
- Further, it may be criticized that the legends describing the circles are positioned on the right hand side and the numbers describing the percentage of growth are on the left. As most readers start to read from left to right, the focus is first on the percentage of growth. Then they go further on to check the names of the companies. But this is the wrong way, because the original question is about the companies and their growth and not about the growth. For this reason the reader lose time to get the information. In addition, the scale produces a lot of white space without information, as between ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
Redesigned Graph
Description of improvements
- The data which should be focused in the first visual layer is clearly in front, underlined by bigger letters (percentage of growth) and different colours (green bars). The supporting components are designed with different colours and smaller letters to draw not to much attention.
- In the new version of the chart the scale is completely deleted. Instead numbers inside the bars show the growth. This allows a much more compact and clear presentation of the data.
- As the sequence was defined by the scale, the companies are already in the right order. It also makes sense to use this order as group definition for the new data bar. The new data bar is now possible because the original circles are now replaced by bars, which are visually easier to compare.
- Now the chart intuitive communicates a clear message through a better presentation of the data, even less elements are used. For this the Data-Ink Ration improved a lot comparing the new version with the old version.