I think the slide organization was a clear way to show your work, however I found eye wandering all over each slide -not because over clutter or too much information, but I think because the dark gray background adds one too many colors. Or maybe its the way the background color reads against the header and icon colors and title color. I enjoy the icon design because it looks like a line graph peaking which made me think about high land prices in regards to your focus and also appears as mountains or land in figure ground. The charts were clear and well done in communicating the data, I think the scale was nice.
Is the icon of a line graph peaking? It looks like a couple of mountains to me, not sure what that has to do with unbuilt spaces. When the icon is used only as a header, it’s also hard to contextualize it–what is it supposed to mean?
I like the icon. I thing is very well done. However its not clear what are you trying to show with it, or how the phenomenon is related to that. Although I agree with Gabrielle that if you analyzed it more it looks like a growing trend line.
I think the Pie chart on page 3 is very clear and well executed.
The graphics and pie chart are very well done and each express the information clearly. The use of bright colors against a dark background also works very well. However, the decision of putting them together in the same slide is what might be a bit confusing. How are underutilized spaces, age of buildings and housing tenure related?
Using an additional slide to explain the relationship between the different types of information (how do they answer your research question) could be benefitial to this purpose. For example, you could dedicate one slide to speak about land use and land value, and another one about tenure, rather than having them in the same slide.
Good notes, Maria.
I think you do a great job of taking a fact and making it seem as surprising as it deserves to be – in particular, the pie chart showing the large percentage of unbuilt space very effectively communicates the shock factor, especially since you put that section in red. I agree with Maria, however, that they could have been separated from the other graphs. I think they deserved their own page so readers can focus specifically on them before moving into more details. I also love the second slide, because I think your pop-out effect to show the census tract ties really nicely with the overall look of your icon. The information below the pop-out might have been laid out differently to make it clearer, maybe by shrinking the text slightly or adding bullet points.
Marc-Evens, as Maggie says, the surprise of your pie chart is a successful one. Let’s work on bolstering the narrative to support that point about the quanitty of unbuilt space. My notes on clarity:
+ Consider some headlines for these slides that actually make a point that can be supported by the slide. What is a takeaway you’d like to encourage your audience to grasp from each slide? A headline like ‘Statistics’ is a bit of a waste of the opportunity to actually communicate something.
+ Your pie chart doesn’t belong with the two bar graphs. Maybe it belongs on a slide with the four photos that are currently on Slide 5? That would help to clarify what is being described in the pie chart, too.
+ The two bar graphs are very interesting and well conceived. But the repeated colors in the two of them conflate the two different types of data and make them read as related data sets. Try instead to use varying shades of a single color on the graph on the left, and two other colors on the graph on the right?
My notes on style:
+ The consistency of the header on each slide helps to unify the slide deck. But it does shift around a bit from slide to slide–if you want to use a header like this, better to put it on the page master, as we did in class, so it will be consistent across all your slides.
+ On Slide 3, it looks like you are highlighting ‘Built Space’, since that wedge of the pie is the brightest and has the special black text on it. Be aware of how these formatting choices impact emphasis.
+ There are dark gray boxes behind your graphs–distracting. Get rid of them.
+ Source citations here are too small to be legible for an audience.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.