I think you’ve done a good job of showing multiple factors in one continuum (accessibility and capacity efficiency)- good data-ink ratio! I like that the icons are mostly intuitive, except the double x. I would find another icon to indicate moderately accessible, because “xx” looks like super inaccessible. Also maybe use a different color than a tint of red for the icons to ensure the reader doesn’t confuse the meaning of the capacity and accessibility. Also, I don’t think you need the text box- I can understand your continuum without reading the text.
Interesting to see so many trash cans are over capacity! Is this representative of all the trash cans you’ve mapped out?
Oh! You are totally right! I just labeled my legend wrong! It looks like super inaccessible because that’s what it’s supposed to mean. Thank you for pointing that out, Korin.
That clears up my confusion there, too. My note was: The XX icon for ‘moderately accessible’ actually reads as ‘twice as inaccessible’—two X’s seem like more than one X. I think your moderate cases need a different icon (if you stick with icons as indicators—I wonder if color tints or might make gentler and less distracting impressions)
Sonja, you’ve assembled a very clean presentation, and you’ve done a good job keeping the elements discrete but manageable and complementary. This said, as Korin suggested, this is too much text for a presentation slide. Most of your first two paragraphs are unnecessary here.
The graphic could also use a title/headline to help me understand your point. Maybe you haven’t figured out yet exactly what this graphic is exploring, and that’s why you haven’t titled it? Sometimes coming up with a title first can help you decide what graphic to make, based on the point you’re trying to make (and then you can revise the title if you don’t end up making that point).
It’s difficult to process that you are actually comparing two variable dimensions here—individual cases vary on how full they are as well as how accessible they are. Because the entries are sequenced according to one dimension (fullness), my brain keeps thinking that they are also sequenced according to accessibility, and then being confused at why that doesn’t seem to be the case. I understand the graphic after some time investigating it, but it takes work. I see your second sketch indicates that you considered a continuum of accessibility, too–how did you decide to privilege fullness over accessibility? Why not a continuum of accessibility with indicators of fullness? If you just had one or a couple more dimensions on which to differentiate trash receptacles, this would be a good candidate for a matrix instead of a continuum diagram, since you already have two dimensions you are comparing.
A final note: you might want to enhance brightness and contrast in your photos to make your trash receptacles a little clearer—they’re getting lost in some of these photos.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.