Adam Sage

Bad Data Viz #1

This visualization is not only cluttered, but choice in color further complicates things. I think the designer wanted to go with a red theme considering this visualization is about the Republican nomination, although the gradients really have no point. I think different (qualitative) colors would have been a better choice. Also, the width of the horizontal axis does not help communicate the sharp increases or decreases in odds. I also don't understand the label "polls," although from reading the accompanying article I know that the data was taken from polls.

Bad Data Viz #2

I like the idea of this chart, although if you look at the key, it starts to get a little crazy. There is an abundance of unnecessary labeling - I mean, they have water labeled, parks, a compass, terrain, rivers, roads, cities, the size of cities, state borders - the list goes on. I think the purpose would be achieved by simply labeling major US cities, the "new" territories, and separating them using just 4 colors. I would also saturate the colors more, which would be an option after removing the unnecessary features. Everything else does not contribute, including the made up territory names. It's creative, but doesn't really help. The volume of information in this example is excessively taxing on working memory.

Good Data Viz #1

I like how this visualization drives home just how rare it is to make it to the NBA. The color choice is good - something soft on the eyes, and a dark color to show contrast and point out the exceptions. I'm not sure this would work to communicate certain proportions though. For instance, communicating 17% would probably not be as effective with this type of chart. One thing that's missing, but was in the text of the article is the number of dots (which is 1,000. However, I do have one problem with this visualization - I suspect from research I've done on risk communication with medication that individuals do not perceive a difference between odds that are very low (e.g., 1% versus .5%). So if you were to show 6 black dots rather than 3, the gist of low odds would be communicated, but the fact that odds were doubled would not.

Good Data Viz #2

Although I'm not a fan of the scales, and they're likely bogus, I think this chart does a good job of illustrating whether there is a correlation between the taste of a beer and the appeal of the label. The axis labels are clear, and the color choices work well. I like how the transparency allows you to see where both variables when they overlap. My only gripe is the plotting this as a trend; however, I think the shaded areas have a benefit in that they allow you to compare the overall sentiment towards taste and prettiness of the label relatively easily. Judging from this, I think it's easy to takeaway the fact that there's no real correlation between how pretty a label is and the taste of a beer.

Part 3 Botanical Hierarchies

I think these data visualizations are difficult to understand. First, the symbolism exhausts visual working memory. It uses up so many pre-attentive cues that it's almost impossible to understand. There are a lot of variations in shapes, physical space (area), color/hue, size, depth etc to make sense of easily. Even if I did know the meaning behind the nuances of the visualization, there is a lot to make sense of here, and I can't really compare one area of the hierarchy to another. The 3D aspect also does not facilitate distinguishing size of nodes on the branches, The colors are also not color-blind friendly - also, green on green is probably not the best choice. I think there may be an easier, simpler way to represent the data, and do so in a way that is considerate of the user.

***I have neither given nor received aid while working on this assignment. I have completed the graded portion BEFORE looking at anyone else's work on this assignment. Signed Adam Sage.***