Homework Number 1
Homework #1 (Critique of existing interactive visualization): (due: 6-10pm Monday, February 9, 2015)
Based on your experience with an interactive visualization, write a critique (300-600 words, include the URL of what you are critiquing), as a letter to the designers. Describe what you like and why, then make suggestions for improvements and, where possible, give URLs for examples that illustrate your points.
Choose from interactive visualizations created during 2014 (Thanks again to Matt Ericson for providing this list).
Other sources include Mike Bostock's list: http://bost.ocks.org/mike/
and Nathan Yau's list from Flowing Data: http://flowingdata.com/2014/12/19/the-best-data-visualization-projects-of-2014-2/
You can organize your critique by way of large issues (choice of services, intended users, ease of learning, range of exploration, etc.), medium issues (use of color, window management, interaction techniques, choice of widgets, data quality, etc.), and small issues (terminology, label placement, color, fonts, etc.). Consider the design from the novice & expert perspectives, small/large screen, slow/fast network, and try to find errors/bugs.
Another approach to a critique might be by using the Eight Golden Rules from "Designing the User Interface" (Chapter 2 in any edition), or see http://www.cs.umd.edu/~ben/goldenrules.html For a further discussion see: Information Visualization specific heuristics
Please add your name in alphabetical order by last name and link your name to your PDF letter, then include a link to the URL of the visualization you are critiquing. Do this between 6-10pm Monday, February 9, 2015
How Birth Year Influences Political Views
In Gaza, a Pattern of Conflict
The Wealth and Health of Nations
Where We Came From and Where We Went
Can You Live on Minimum Wage?"
The Federal Budget, Per Person
How Nonemployed Americans Spend Their Weekdays: Men vs. Women
How the Recession Reshaped the Economy, in 255 Charts
Is it Better to Rent or Buy?
Where Men Aren't Working
A Map of Baseball Nation
Every Men’s Figure Skating Jump, on One Page
The Clubs that Connect the World Cup
World Cup Predictions
Exemplars and Improvements
Opportunistic vs. Thorough Critiques and Suggestions;
At least 3-4 Critiques and Subsequent Suggestions;
Structures Reasoning (Large, Medium Small Issues or 8 Golden Rules or Other)
Critiques and Suggestions:
Opportunistic includes 2-3 medium to small issues
Thorough includes 3-4 Issues pertaining to whole visualization At least 1 showed understanding of the intent of the visualization (What were designers trying to do and how could I do it better?)
In reality, there are exactly two teams from each group to construct the round of sixteen. Thus there should be two teams from D and two teams from A. My suggestion for this would be: since you already have a prediction of 16 advance teams in the “GROUP STAGE”, you can start with that. Or, if you want to rank teams based solely on probability, you should put an explanation in an more obvious position so that users could easily understand your intention. Otherwise a soccer fan will easily get confused when they see three teams from the same group can make it into the round of sixteen. So this leads to another small issue which is that the “CHANCE OF REACHING ROUND” label is too small and insignificant, while it tries to convey key information.
One interesting piece of information I would like to add is the age range. I think it would be useful for readers to see how men and women of a certain age range spend their time when unemployed. Currently, the graph shows data from adults aged 25 to 54. I suggest adding textboxes or sliders that allows the users to input a range of age to view on the graph. This will make the graph more interactive and gives the readers more options and control of what information they can see.
Support and Structure Your Reasoning with larger concepts: Always explain why you personally think something, or a larger theory supports it. User-friendly? Say why
4. We could also enhance the search procedure. Besides the current service which allows users to search by city, we could provide other search options such as search by state, county, or zip code. Moreover, we could also provide a search list which records the search history that may help users to quickly and easily search again. This is inspired by rule 2. cater to universal usability, rule 3. offer informative feedback, rule 6. permit easy reversal of actions and rule 8. reduce short-term memory load.
From the perspective of The Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design by Ben Shneiderman, the webpage is consistent to a very high degree especially considering the ways of inputting values for various criteria in the calculator. On changing any value for any criteria, the calculator dynamically updates the resultant rent amount i.e. it offers informative feedback. It also permits easy reversal of actions. One can click the small x button to reset the values for particular criteria. The only improvement I would suggest is that if the application would have particular state/city wise data, it would get much more accurate. Overall, I would say that this webpage with the help of the visualization used, acts like a very simple, useful and effective web application that can be used by a wide range of users.