A1-MichaelSo
From CS294-10 Visualization Fa08
Good Visualization
Source: Anime Insider, September 2005, Volume 24
Description
This visualization is a relatively simple pie chart that depicts the distribution of Anime-Insider subscribers among their favorite Hayao Miyazaki films. From this visualization, it is apparent which Miyazaki film was chosen by the most Anime-Insider subscribers and which one was chosen by the least. The clock-wise order of the pie chart (where it goes from highest-percentage to lowest) helps minimize search and improve ability for quick comparison and analysis. Also the position of the two biggest pie slices in the pie chart makes it quick to see which one is bigger; if their shared edge was at an angle instead of orthogonal, it would be not as quick to make such a conclusion. The type-out percentages are also helpful aids for analyzing when there are pie slices that appear very similar is size. This helps point out differences as small as 1%.
Deconstruction
This visualization is called a pie chart. The data set is the number of votes given for each Miyazaki film counted in this particular web poll asking "What is your favorite Ghibli film from Hayao Miyazaki?" The size of the data set is not indicated since only percentages are depicted. In the pie chart, each Hayao Miyazaki movie is encoded by a unique color hue. This is a good choice because the movie titles are nominal variables (neither quantitative nor ordered). The size of each pie slice encodes the percentage of Anime Insider subscribers who voted for the particular Miyazki movie indicated the pie slice's color hue. An image of a character from one of the movies is place to the right of the pie chart. Around the character's waste is the label indicating which Miyazaki movie this character is from. The movie the character is from happens to be the movie that gained the highest percentage of votes. Therefore this image seems to help identify the "winning" movie in another way than just by the title.
Bad Visualization
Source: MacAddict, January 2006, Volume 113
Description
The visualization is a table comparing 11 different printers in terms of their costs. This visualization is not a completely bad visualization, but I feel there a few bad design choices. One is the color-coding of the printers. There are four distinct color fonts for the printer names, so there are apparently four distinct groups. However, it is not obvious what the four groups are i.e. what each color represents. A legend of some sort would be helpful in revealing what the colors mean. Second, there is no clear definition of the acronym “TCO”. The definition could be found in the article, but from just looking at the visualization, it is just not there. Lastly, I found the footnotes in the column headers to be confusing. I did not find them to be obviously footnotes; they seemed to be part of the header title.
Deconstruction
This visualiazation is a data table. The data set includes the quantitative variables of the prices for each category that relates to the costs of printers and also nominal variables such as printer and cartridge type. Each type of printer is encoded by a unique color hue. This is a good choice since the printer types are nominal variables. The rows of the table encode a specific printer and the columns of the table encode the attributes of the corresponding printers such as cartridge costs, printer type, and price of printer. There is also an alternating color to used to encode the rows i.e. darker blue followed by lighter blue followed by the darker blue, etc.
Reconstruction
Explanation of Reconstruction
I switched the encodings of the rows and columns of the table from the original such that the rows now encode the attributes of the printer and the columns encode a specific printer. Viewing the prices from left to right instead of vertically would make the task of comparing printer costs easier. To make clear there are four distinct types of printers, I made four relatively large headers indicating the printer type of the printers below it. I also used color hue to reinforce the distinction between the printer types. So for example, all the information pertaining to inkjet printers are of the same color hue and same goes for the other three types, each with their own unique color hue. I also changed the footnotes from numbers to asterisks (*). This helps alleviate the potential confusion from incorrectly thinking that the footnotes are part of the header title i.e. Page^2 versus Page*. I also wrote out the acronym TCO into "Total Cost of Ownership" to eliminate that ambiguity of acronyms. I kept the alternating colored rows because it distinguishes the rows effectively.
