A mistake that sticks out to me was from Lin’s presentation was a picture of California (and I’m from The Bay, so I can say that). But with more specificity, the chart she showed us was a map of California, with different circles representing the unhoused population in each county. However, the chart did not take into account population density (cities vs rural areas) in its calculations, so it could not be used as a tool of proportionality. Additionally, the circles often overlapped, making which county the chart creators were illustrating confusing. Because of all this, specificity on what I am trying to illustrate as well as clarity in lines, boundaries, etc will be important.
A good graph
Minard’s Graphic does stress me out for whatever reason, but I think it is a good example of specificity and clarity.
The lines are clearly different colors, illustrating that they are representing two different (albeit related) events. Through the graphic he describes divisions of troops, geography, temperature and more because of its proportionality.
All that said, I personally find the font very difficult to read. So while I would certainly strive to make a graph as involved as Minard’s, I would also take into account readability.
1 thought on “Data Visualization”
Comments are closed.
I agree that Minard’s map does an effective job of presenting information accurately. However, due to its overwhelmingness, it is important to find a balance between relaying data that is pertinent to the overall message and creating a project that is easily readable to appeal to a wide range of audiences.