Teaching talk:TUW - UE InfoVis WS 2009/10 - Gruppe 03 - Aufgabe 3
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Bewertung[edit]
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:[edit]
- 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[edit]
- 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