Read: Chapter 12
Write: Reading Response #7
Find and analyze a bad graphic. Provide a link to the graphic and use information from Chapter 12 to critique the image. (You may also use info from the second half of Chapter 11 if it's relevant to your graphic). In addition to your critique, make recommendations for what the designer should change to make the graphic better. Be sure you're using information from the book in your analysis. You need to use specific terminology and evidence from the chapter as you critique your graphic.
Don't just find a badly designed webpage or document for this reading response. The chapter clearly discusses graphics in terms of drawings, charts, maps, diagrams, tables, etc. Pick a graphic that shows poor representation of data if you want to do well on this assignment.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
18 comments:
If you are submitting an assignment, be sure your sharing permissions are set correctly and that you create a link by following the directions at this site: How To Leave a Link in a Blogger Comment
Copy the line of code there, replace the web address with a link to your document (but leave the quotation marks in place), and replace the word Home with your name and the name of the assignment (example: JoySanteeProveIt1).
After you submit your comment, be sure the link works. If it doesn't, edit it for correctness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bad Graphic
ReplyDeleteOn this link, the graph is under the heading, Parabolic Labeling. The graph is titled, “Top Brands by Social Media Presence.” This graph stirs confusion for many reasons. First, the line drawings from each company to their numerical data are not clear to follow and appear a tangled mess. Tick marks are not used on the vertical axis between numbers. Also, the numerical data decreases from left to right, instead of increasing from left right, which makes the graph seem deceiving. The vertical axis is not labeled, so units of measure used are not clear. Sources are not cited anywhere in the graphic. This graphic contains a colored bar graph along with a line graph to the data below. To improve this graphic, I would utilize the colored bar graph only, cutting out the dotted lines. I would rearrange the vertical axis to increase in number from left to right, label the axis, and use tick marks between numbers. Tick marks will allow my audience to gage the quantities easily. I would chose a color for the bars that contrasts more sharply with the background of the graphic, like red or green. I would also use an asterisk at the bottom of the graph to site where this data was obtained from. These actions would make the graphic less confusing, and clearer to decipher the data displayed.
Pie Chart
ReplyDeleteThis pie chart is completely unreadable at first glance, and only barely serviceable with careful study. The graph in its original context may have been explained, but without a title, the image by itself conveys no information. Nothing about this graph suggests what the data it portrays refers to. The contrast is also terrible here: at first glance you may think the bars of color have meaning, but they are purely decorative. The true sections of the pie chart are shaded in faintly in varying intensities of white, which is barely noticeable on top of the colorful background. There should be no color on the pie chart except for coloring individual slices to separate them from each other. Finally, the strange 3D perspective makes it difficult to judge the relative sizes of the wedges. Graphs should be kept in 2D at all times, because 3D perspectives can skew the appearance of the sizes of elements. At least the graphic does include specific percentages and a label for each wedge, but with how little information the actual graphic provides, a table would have worked just as well, if not better.
http://andrewgelman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Screen-Shot-2014-10-09-at-8.48.21-AM.png
ReplyDeleteThe graph I evaluated was about the number of nobel prizes given out based on countries and the topics. It was made into a circle, making it tough to follow, so everything was crammed together when it could've easily been made into a bar graph. Even a better graph would be to separate the subjects by making a bar graph for subject while comparing the countries for each. It would definitely clear up the clutter and make it more simple. The graph didn’t have a very good title either because all it said was Nobel Laureates which wasn’t clear of what was going on in the graph. The format lacked effectiveness as well, by picking dull colors for the subjects, which blended together. Also they stuck a bubble up on the top right saying total 876, not giving indication on what has a total of 876. The contrast wasn't too bad because it wasn’t the color that was confusing, it was the crossing of the paths. Actually, I think the bars signifying the countries needed to be brighter colors because they it add to the confusion. One thing they did do however was put the numbers inside the circle for the countries and put the numbers outside the circle for the subjects.
Terrible Graphic
ReplyDeleteThe bad graphic that I found is an infographic that is supposed to explain the demand for artists in various fields, instead it is completely indecipherable. The graph featured has a key that is fairly straightforward, but the graph uses colors and symbols that are not in the key. The also use the symbols in different colors than shown in the including colors that were used for a different item in the key, so the reader cannot tell if the color or the symbol is what represents the type of art. The graph also just includes thing that were not even on the key, making it even more confusing. They also don’t mention if the size of the symbols or proximity to the category mean anything because it all differs. The contrast is good, but the format lacks thought. They also have “a few short things” that artist do, but it is eight and a half columns and the print is so small nothing can actually be read. One of the first things I would change would be to make it much simpler. There are too many symbols and colors, so I would use a symbol and color for each type of art and not change it and not add anything to the graphic to make it more artistic. I would also get rid of most of the text at the bottom, so that people can read it. the graph just needs more uniformity and a better explanation, because as is the purpose is almost indecipherable.
https://www.targetdashboard.com/blog/77/The-Next-Big-thing-4-data-visualization-examples-with-better-alternatives.aspx
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are 4 examples of graphics gone wrong on this webpage I will only be taking about the first one: bubble graphs. The graphic falls short mainly because there are too many things trying to be analyzed at one time the title is: How $3.7 Trillion is Spent and that is something that should be in either a pie graph or a line graph not a bubble graph because anything that is under a certain amount will not be accounted for leaving the graph unfinished. Also the coloring is off because while there is a key that tells you the percent change whether positive or negative, again you only know the rate of change for the labeled bubbles. Also the amount spent is nowhere listed, only where the money was given and if that amount has increased, decreased, or remained neutral. To improve this graphic I would change it to a pie graph similar to the one released by the US government here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg. This clearly outlines where the money is going and what percentage is going there form the national budget. While it might be from Wikipedia it still is a better visual representation than a bubble graph. That is because there is a properly labeled key to the side with different colors representing the different departments because this one does not try to say with spending has gone up and which has gone down. By sticking to a simple outline the pie graph allows viewers to not be overwhelmed and under informed like the bubble graph does.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/naomirobbins/2012/05/30/winner-of-the-bad-graph-contest-announced-2/#570e720b3307
ReplyDeleteIn this link there are several bad graphs. I am looking at figure 3, a poorly designed 3D bar graph. At first glance there is no doubt that another type of graph should have been used. Because this bar graph is 3D, the audience cannot see all of the different bars, and what they represent. To improve how the information in this graph is portrayed, a table should have been used. According to the book, tables convey large amounts of numerical data easily, and they are often the only way to present several variables for a number of items. Since there are five different names, and four different directions in this graph, a table would be the best solution. The alignment of this graph is also poor because of the angle of which the graph is facing. The graph is at about a 45 degree angle crooked, so it is hard to tell which numbers on the graph belong to each bars. Using a table that is color coated will make things more evident for the viewers. One last thing that is poor about this graph is that there is no title, or information about what the graph is telling us. The information in this graph is hard enough to understand to begin with. If the person who made this chart wants viewers to understand what this graph is all about, they need to be more specific and use a table instead.
http://static.chandoo.org/img/cb/top100-twitter-users-bad-pie-chart.jpg
ReplyDeleteThe graphic I chose to analyze is a terribly designed pie chart. The chart is titled “100 Most Active Tweeters.” As far as serving a purpose, I feel like this graph failed. I see not real reason, other than curiosity, that someone would need to know this information. On top of this, it does not label a date that the data was gathered or what sources it got the information from, which makes the chart unreliable and therefore irrelevant. As far as simplicity, this graph is the farthest thing from it. The chart is split into 10x more sectors than it should be. It also doesn’t give a number of tweets for each account which means this chart is only good for seeing that maybe one tweeter tweets relatively twice as much as another. The first six tweeters take up about one third of the pie chart of 100 tweeters. In order to simplify this chart I would reduce it to the top 10 tweeters. This would ensure there was a manageable amount of information on the chart. Other than reducing the number of tweeters listed on this chart, I believe it should also show each sectors percentage and possibly even their total tweets over the past year. No doubt this graph is poorly labeled considering the only information listed is the title and the list of tweeters with associated colors to the graph listed next to them. Over all this is a very sad attempt at a pie chart and should be trashed and completely redone only if a logical argument for how it could serve a purpose in some way was presented.
The graph that I chose was a pie graph on origins of food consumed in the UK by value. There were a number of problems I saw in this graph. First being the title, it was hard to understand what they were displaying. The title had food consumed in the UK. Why was the U.S in this graph? Another problem I saw was the large amount of data squeezed into this pie chart. It was to the point where it was hard to match the country and the data that went with it. In the bigger sections they actually labeled the percentage underneath the country’s name. Once they started to run out of space they stopped putting the percentage down. They also had a section for 100 more countries. So they didn’t even have enough room to finish. This should have been a sign of an improper graph to display their data. They should have used a table like it is recommended in the book. A table can be used for large amounts of data like they have here. The only thing this graph had going for it was that it was in 2D, in which every graph should avoid using 3D due to the fact that it distorts the graph. The suggestions I would make would be to use a table instead of a pie chart and come up with a more clear title.
ReplyDeletehttps://fullfact.org/news/new-years-resolution-5-i-will-not-make-bad-graphs/
Zino Efenedo
ReplyDeleteThe chart I evaluated was about fast food companies and the amount of calories and fats each of their servings contain. This chart was an infographic and the designer of this chart definitely does not encourage cutting down on calories, because the first few things that a readers eyes is attracted to is the food displayed and according to psychology, once a person’s eyes grasps unto something especially when hungry, you will crave for it which I do not think was the purpose of this chart. In fact, the writer of this chart did not declare a purpose and this should have been the included in the chart.
There was a plethora of different servings of burgers and pizzas scattered around the chart. I would suggest the designer used columns and boxes to align the pictures and if possible reduce the amount of burgers in the chart as this may distract the attention of the audience from the purpose of the chart. The designer did not include into consideration that this chart may be used on different electronic devices and once the chart is zoomed into, the graphics becomes blurred. The designer should have increased the pixels per inch to make the chart viewable on large electronic devices.
Finally, there were some terminologies on the chart like “RDI” that not all readers will understand so simplifying the chart to a layman’s language would be helpful except the chart was not intended for general audience but then, the purpose and audience was not clearly stated in the chart.
http://www.flightunit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/junk-food-chart-flightunit-548x308.jpg
MadelaineZinserReadingResponse7
ReplyDeleteThis creative yet ineffective infographic is showing information on Tumblr users. The creator makes use of colors, pie(maybe?) graphs, and bar graphs.
The color is not used effectively. Only two colors contrast with the background. There are too many dark colors and everything fades. Small similar colored text is hard to read. Patterns in color indicate different categories. However, the different colors do not break up the type of information. Bold colors do not emphasize important info. Colors on the bottom right charts blend in with the background. Changing the background to a light color will fix a lot of issues.
Bar graphs are used effectively. Data is easy to read with the percentage shown. The information associated with the data is hard to read. A circular graph is too busy. A table is more organized and beneficial. Circular graphs on the right are confusing to read. Each percentage doesn’t add to 100. The shading does not have much meaning. The graphic would be more clear and meaningful in a pie graph. I am not sure why the bars are going different directions.
In general, the graphic needs more explanation. The data and information appears valid, but I do not have a clear understanding of what the creator is trying to portray.
ReplyDelete“Unsexy America” is a poorly made infographic for a few reasons. In order to be an effective graphic it should follow five principles, but I think it fully only follows two of them; it serves a purpose and it presents a manageable amount of information. The other three principles are not prevalent. The infographic is cluttered with small images and confusing “graph bars.” The graphic does not follow a reader’s format expectations, because it does not use the traditional bar graph for two different sections of the infographic. Also, the information isn’t all clearly labeled, like the meanings of pornography per capita in U.S. dollars. Considering the bar graphs, the infographic doesn’t always make the proportions fair. The sexual frequency bar graph using rabbits as the bars is an example of proportions, because there are only twelve “bars” present and the final bar was the U.S. that should have been represented in the 24th line. In the chapter it talks about how 2D bars are more effective than 3D bars in a bar graph. In the case of the “Unsexy America” infographic, they really dropped the ball on the bar graphs by using rabbits and winding words like “Ooohhhhh” and “Donnttsttopppp.” It took me way too long to realize what the words were and that they were representing a bar graph. The infographic had an appropriate color scheme and purpose, but all in all it could have been more effective.
http://goo.gl/4ZRI3F
http://www.theusrus.de/blog/the-good-the-bad-72011/
ReplyDeleteThe graph I chose was a pie chart on how frequently we share recommendations online. They had all the percentage numbers right but the first aspect of the chart that stuck out was the overall color of it. When looking at it from a distance it was very hard to read, you had to look at it very carefully to understand it. There are eight different colors on the pie chart, but over the pie chart there is a white cloud that is dividing the graphs into 5 sections, making it look like there is eleven different colors. To improve this graph, I would not have a background of the graph all different colors. I would have each frequency of how much they use recommendations online a different color and I would probably not put the data in a pie chart. I would probably design this graph with bars. I would choose a color of the sections that would contrast well. The graph could have been 2 d, which would have been easier to understand, instead of putting a shadow and tilting the graph. They should have used a table like it is recommended in the book. A table can be used for varying amounts of data like they have here. The suggestions I would make would be to use a table instead of a pie chart and come up with a clearer title in describing what recommendations people use too beside just the frequencies.
The infographic linked is called, “Reading, Writing, And Earning Money.” It depicts the United States split up into each state’s districts with a color representing it’s high school graduate, college graduate, and Median Household Income percentages. Each representation is brightly colored and has it’s own smaller infographic on the left hand side. Though the centerpiece of the graphic is the culmination of all three, leaving the reader with a page of colors that is virtually impossible to comprehend. There are hundreds of different shades of bright colors on in each state when there should be three colors maximum. Because of these random colors, the infographics data is left unrepresented. A map infographic should be split up into states and regions only like West, Midwest, Northeast, and South. Even if the graphic only displayed three separate maps of the US, each of them representing their own category, it would have been acceptable. But with this explosion of color on the United States, it gives too much information that would have readers deciphering it for years when they should not be looking at it for more than a minute. The legend does not give an easy way to tell the percentages for each district, the map is far too complex.
ReplyDeletehttps://tiffanyheisler.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/transparency.jpg
Deletehttp://www.theusrus.de/blog/the-good-and-the-bad-chicken-and-egg-problem/
ReplyDeleteI decided to use this infographic that GE made to highlight mental health costs within their own company. This pie chart stood out to me for a few reasons. The first is that it is unclear what the total pie chart is actually supposed to be representing. When I first looked at it my thought was that they had not bothered to color each section, and as such, each wedge was referring to a different age range. It seems that instead the color purple deals only with depression alone but the pie chart doesn’t make it clear whether the other wedges are other mental illnesses, health expenses, or total expense over some period of time. Another issue comes in from the different sizes of the wedges of the pie chart. The graphic doesn’t adequately explain why some pieces of the pie chart are varying sizes which is hard for the viewer to grasp and understand what is happening in the graphic. Finally, going against one of the guidelines from the book, the biggest wedge of the pie is not at the top of the graphic but rather on the side. Even worse than that is an argument could be made for different pieces of the pie chart being the “biggest” piece since the pie chart seems to be measuring something with its radius from the center as well. Overall the graphic is very unclear to me as a viewer but might be improved or revamped with some simple changes. Labeling what each piece of the pie is representing would be helpful for the viewer to know what this whole graphic is trying to convey. Another thing would be to explain somewhere in the image what the differing radius wedges are supposed to reflect. Making some simple changes such as these to better inform a more casual viewer of what is happening in this pie chart would make it much more accessible.
For this blog post, I decided to analyze a graphic made to explain mass incarceration. The PPI used a pie chart to present their information. The title of this pie chart is “How Many People are Locked Up in the United States?” The title is lengthy, and phrased as a question. I feel like the title should not be a full question, but instead a phrase to minimize the amount of text on the page. At first glance, looking at this graph was overwhelming. I thought the chunk on the left would be a key for the graph, however, it was just a part of the graph zoomed in. Because this is zoomed in, it feels as if the designer is making an emphasis on the particular information, however, it is zoomed in because it is too small to read. Zooming in on the smallest part of the graph is misleading. Also, the amount of text is overwhelming. Because there are so many different sections to the graph, the designed had to label way too many areas. Being in a circle makes the graph hard to follow, especially with how much information is being presented. Also, being in a circle graph and using numbers instead of percentages. I feel like people use circle graphs to show percentages, not numbers like this one does. This graph has an overflow of information and should not be shoved into one chart. The designer should have created more than one graphic. The major sections of the pie graph are color coded and have good contrast, but within the major sections are multiple subsections and then sub-subsections, and so on, which again are slightly different colored but are within the same color scheme, giving almost no contrast between the colors. Also, the background is very dark. Some terminologies used in the graph could be confusing to some viewers. They have three different types of assaults listed. Some people may not realize the court gets so technical. In order to simplify the information they could have put all assaults into one category. Overall, the designer should have used a table like recommended in the book. Also, the designer should have used more than one graph to present this data. Trying to shove all of this data into one graph is overwhelming. By using more than one graph, that minimizes the amount of text on the graph as well. I feel like creating more than one graph would solve a majority of the problems with this graph.
ReplyDeletehttp://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/pie2015.jpg
The graphic I chose to critique is a 3D bar graph. If the graph was 2D, it would be much easier to understand. This could be done by making it a grouped bar graph, a subdivided bar graph, or even multiple bar graphs. By making the information easier to distinguish, the information will become easier to comprehend and useful. The graphic is missing a title and it is hard to know where the information came from. Besides this improvement, the graphic isn’t too bad. The proportions of the axes are fair, the quantity scale starts at zero, tick marks are used, and the bars are arranged logically.
ReplyDeletehttp://data-visualization-software.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/dangers-of-data-visualization-3.png
http://playfairgroup.blogspot.com/2010/09/yum-million-pieces-of-pie.html
ReplyDeleteThe graphic I choose is a pie chart. This pie chart is very poorly done. First, it has way too many parts and it does not use a legend to help clarify the chart. Also they used the same colors for several different parts of the chart. Also when they did label it they used random numbers and letters that only experts would know what they mean. This graphic is very cluttered and if the reader just gets this graph they wouldn’t even know what they were looking at. If you just look at the graph it has no information on what type or kind of information they are trying to tell you about. I have no idea what audience these people were going for, but I definitely don’t think it was for just the general public. Most people would be very confused if they looked at this graph there is no organization and it is just everywhere. If you read about the graph they are trying to show that too much information can all run together. I would say that their purpose was to show that sometimes more isn’t what you should go for, because this graph has way too much going on. I can barely stand to look at it due to the fact that all the colors and the several little sections just start to run together after a while. If you were to use this to get some type of information across. You would not get anywhere because it is way too confusing.