Teaching talk:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2009/10 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3

Bewertung

finale Bewertung: 25 Punkte

Begründung:

• Keine Änderungen durchgeführt

Katharina-Anna Wendelin 21:40, 7 February 2010

---

endgültige Bewertung: 25 Punkte

Begründung:

• Alle Änderungen durchgeführt

Katharina-Anna Wendelin 17:49, 18 January 2010

---

vorläufige Bewertung: 22 Punkte

Begründung:

• Sehr guter Lösungsvorschlag
• Die Farben sollten sich voneinander besser unterscheiden. Vor allem "animal fats" (was übrigens in der Legende falsch geschrieben ist ;-)), "Milk & Products" und "Vegetable Oils" sind schwer auseinander zu halten.
• Auch in der Überschrift befindet sich ein Rechtschreibfehler
• Kennzeichnung der Werte in den Klammern als durchschnittlicher Gesamtverbrauch pro Kopf. Diesen Wert auch hervorheben, da er zur Zeit etwas untergeht. Der Wert sollte auch bei der Beschriftung der y-Achse angegeben werden.
• Bitte fügt die ursprüngliche (zu verbessernde) Grafik wieder auf der Seite ein.

Katharina-Anna Wendelin 15:22, 18. Dezember 2009

• Farben sowie Rechtschreibfehler ausgebessert / verbessert!
• Ursprüngliche Grafik: Verlinkungsfehler behoben
• Geklammerte Werte hervorgehoben jedoch auf der x-Achse gelassen, da diese Daten nur einen direkten Zusammenhang mit den auf der x-Achse aufgetragenen Jahren haben. Anmerkung bzgl. Gesamtverbrauch pro Kopf nur einmal angegeben (links) wegen Data-Ink-Ratio. Beschriftung der y-Achse gleich gelassen, da diese ja nur die Änderungs-Rate der verschiedenen Daten angibt!

(UE-InfoVis0910 0526452 12:03, 19 December 2009 (CET))

---

Violation of Rules:

• Rule 3: Colors in the given diagrams are meaningful, but the diagrams could be better arranged.
• Rule 5: Colors of the lines are bad. Red and green in a diagram is not good (color blindness, Rule 8)
• Rule 6: Colors are not enough different (f.e. green or yellow)

• The diagrams have no expressiveness. No declaration of percentual values or constants.
• Contrast between background and foreground is not optimal (especially expression)
• Unnecessary "non-data-ink" should be omitted (e.g. seperation between the diagrams)
• Diagrams shoud be rebuild. At the moment it is not realy clear, would data should be shown, what should be compared etc.
• Sequenzing diagrams to simplify the readability (from left to right, from top to bottom)
• Consider WHAT, WHEN, WHO, WHERE in the diagrams

(UE-InfoVis0910 0526452 16:11, 3 December 2009 (CET))

Additional Ideas/ Critics:

• Introduction mentions US, but no graph about US itself.
• No percentage on graphs. No exact values plotted --> no exact message
• Black background (no data-ink) --> bad contrast
• Is any data more important?
• Detailed legend for every graph --> may be replaced by legends included inside the graph, so reader is able to derive this info by himself
• colors are not very distinct

some more redesign ideas

• The black background - although it probably made sence in the original context - could be removed -> the text colored black
• The headlines background shouldn't differ a lot from the main background color, to not draw away attention from the data
• Enhance the use of ink in a way, that simmilar categories get more simmilar colors, but still having enough difference between the colors
• Rethink, if all caregories are needed. If not, add unrelevant data to the 'other' section (e.g. animal fat).
• Soften the colors of the less relevant data compared to the important one (important are: meat, cereals, ?); 'other' should be least prominent;
• Remove the decoration element in the middle of the graphs, because it just distracts.
• Text below the image: display the words referring to categories of the graphs italic.
• Hues like black and red tend to drag more attention than others, don't ose them if this is not intended
• Reorder the data, so that the graphs begin with the most important category, the least important at the end
• Rotated text is bad, dont use it like the years.
• Border around the graphs and their related explanations? Not good
• Possible new structure of the graphs:
  • Keep each region in a different graph. Putting them all together would lead to chaos.
  • Use a bar diagram, each bar is a category, the years are put next to each other
  • or use a line diagram instead with the years as horizontal developing. The categories are represented by different lines and different colors.
  • In both ways, the graphs shall be placed next to each other (from left to right), to make it possible to compare the values of the regions as well.
• Importance can also be communicated via thickness of the lines
• Keep size of legend the same than the text, labels