Image: Jose

myTREESsymbol

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Image: Jose

  1. I really like your photosynthesis process diagram; I think it helped to contribute a clearer understanding of the importance of trees in BXCT52 in their removal of air pollutants. I learned a lot from this slide, and I think that you presented this science in a graphically easy-to-understand way.

    In terms of style, I still don’t think you need the dotted lines as they are a little distracting.

  2. Your graphic has a lot of information and I that’s what I like about it. It shows both the natural nature of trees to both humans and animals, but also shows how the factories producing grossness in the air is able to be slightly tamed by the possible implementation of trees in the neighborhood. Nice job. I particularly like your sketches because it totally shows your process. My only concern is about how much ink you would be using. Perhaps playing with the sizing and colors of some of your elements would help in this regard, possibly making important distinctions in the various relationships stand out even more. Also- I love the animated feel of the green trucks on the bottom, but I wonder if they’re necessary in communicating the messages within them. They’re sweet additions, but are they ‘chart-junk’ that your slide can live without?

  3. I like a lot of things about this graphic. I like how you juxtaposed the pollution half with the clean half using colors, the lungs are a really cool addition as well, emphasizing the clean air principle. My eye moves through the graphic relatively easily without much confusion however, I agree with Fareen’s point about the chart junk. All the little trucks are cool but possibly excessive. The graphic is a little unbalanced with a lot on information at the bottom of the page- I wonder if you made the trucks bigger and the font in them stand out a little more if that would even out the ink a little. I think “particulate matter” could have been bigger and I have to say, I don’t really like the font you used for those pollutants, it’s too playful to a) indicate a bad pollutant and b) be professional. It was cute with the cartoon of the dog but I think this graphic needs to be more information focused and maybe less style focused.

    That being said you obviously have a great command of the programs, you use a bunch of different techniques and obviously spent a lot of time on this so nice job!

  4. Resonating with all the comments here. This is a fun idea for a diagram. It’s great to visualize all the components of the scene on both sides. You have a good, clear headline. But there are still obstacles to clarity here:

    + You essentially split the page in half, which makes it seem like you are establishing comparison between left and right. But you’re not, really–you’re explaining a process of cleaning the air. So maybe the background color shouldn’t be a hard split, but a gradient from gray to blue all the way across? Might be less aggressive that way, too.
    + As others have noted, I don’t understand why all the explanation about what trees do is printed on the side of the trucks. Seems like trucks are the opposite of trees–you don’t want to conflate their impacts or value. Try instead using captions (maybe white?) and indicator lines to connect the captions to the processes you’re identifying in the diagram.
    + Shouldn’t the entire tree have green leaves? You’re saying that the tree takes in all of this stuff from the left and puts out oxygen and clean air, not that the pollutants harm the tree. Right now the color palette suggests an unhealthy tree at left and a healthy one at right–but that’s not what this is about. The tree should be more or less the same on both sides, just intaking on the left and releasing on the right. No? Or at least less drastically different.
    + Reduce some of the duplicative text here. There’s a label that says ‘Carbon storage’ and another that says ‘Trees store carbon in their roots and wood.’ Maybe you could just have one piece of text that says ‘Carbon storage in roots and wood’ and place this label on top of the roots of the tree, or to the side of them with an indicator line pointing to the roots.

    Notes on styling:
    + This is a very saturated and style-dense slide, potentially tipping into chartjunky, as Fareen and Adriana note. Consider thinning out the graphics a little. You could remove the green box behind the headline; eliminate the circles behind your tree processes; eliminate the second tier of ground color (where your message-carrying trucks are right now) and change some of your gradients to flat colors. I think this would increase the slide’s legibility; right now there is a bit too much going on visually. Simplify it—it will be more effective and better looking, and when it is simpler graphically, I think you may find opportunities to increase its information density (that is, to include more actual information here).
    + Slides have printed as Spreads. I can help you fix that if you need–try printing as individual pages instead.
    + The layout wants to be symmetrical and for the tree to be in the center. It’s close enough to being in the center that it’s one the first things you notice about it that it’s not centered.
    + Dashed line along the left side of the graphic. Seems extraneous.
    + Text on the trucks at bottom is probably too small to read on a slide like this.
    + Keep your fonts consistent; you’re using a new one in your labels on your clouds of pollution. Like Adriana, I think it’s too cutesy of a typeface.
    + Contrast is not high enough on your ‘gaseous pollutants’ caption to be legible, beyond which, I think this caption is unnecessary given your other labels.
    + Caption next to the dog is not legible with this styling–does it say CO2? Try removing the stroke around your text. Making it hard to read.

    Great work thinking through different ways to visualize the elements here.
    I like the arrows within the tree that you’ve sketched out–they speak a bit more to a process than the simple circles you’ve got now (which I think are unnecessary anyway). But I also understand needing to simplify content here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s