The Good:
This map shows a number of geopolitical statistics regarding districts' representation in the House of Representatives. Hue is used as the measure of the political dimension, in the conventional scheme of blue = democrat, red = republican. Green is used to represent other parties (few, if any, such districts are visible). Here, value and saturation are used together to convey different qualitative measures of the given party candidate's lead. Light, faded colors mean the candidate has the lead; a solid, darker color means the candidate has won; and a shaded color means the candidate has recently gained a lead over other party in the polls.
This map succeeds as an interactive visualization on two fronts: data density and intuitive use. The use of color is extremely effective in conveying the current political transformation. The map conveys efficiently how many districts have seen a recent republican gain. The scrollbar on the lower left allows for a more contextual understanding of the timeline of these victories. For example, the transition from 2008 to 2010 shows a dramatic shift from blue to red. The alternate views do well to frame the same phenomenon in a slightly different way: In "District Bubbles" view, the bubble in each district denotes quantitatively (radius of the bubble) the extent to which the leading party (hue) is ahead. Using the "Electorate Explorer" view is easy, too. One can specify a range or some other criteria using the scroll bar above the map, easily filtering the map by party spending, population demographics, or even whether or not there is a tea party candidate on the ballot. Interaction with this map allows the user to ask a large number of questions with minimal effort.
The Bad:
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/19/
found in:
http://laist.com/2010/11/03/map_which_counties_voted_yes_on_pro.php
found in:
http://laist.com/2010/11/03/map_which_counties_voted_yes_on_pro.php
This map manages to convey the main idea behind the article in which it was featured: that only a handful of counties in California voted for Prop 19. The graphic is simple enough, illustrating that only 11 of California's 58 counties voted in favor, all of them in more liberal areas along the coast and near Lake Tahoe. Although this geographic depiction might make the vote look like a landslide, the article notes, the vote was split by a narrow margin: about 54% to 46%. Links to the side of the graphic allow the user to view similar maps reporting on other propositions.
Although it is effective in conveying the two pieces of information it is intended to, this visualization's interactivity has some problems. More specifically, it is not as powerful as it could be if it made full use of interactive possibilities. First of all, there is the minor problem that without the clarifying article, the small figures along the side are too understated; the power of this figure comes from the very fact that it is spatially at odds with the statistics, which convey a much narrower margin. A simple solution of bigger text might solve this problem. The broader problem, however, is that it fails to take advantage of small multiples. A reasonable question one might want to ask of the web page featuring this graphic is: "How do the districts who voted for Prop X compare to those who voted for Prop Y?" Currently, the best way to answer such a question is to toggle back and forth between links, requiring lots of short-term memory and attention to disparate detail from the user. The user can also click on a county to see a data table for that county, and compare numerical figures on the county level, which also has its drawbacks. What if the user wants to see a visible correlation?
A better solution would be to have a comparison tool, using two (or perhaps even more) maps side by side, each illustrating the results for a different proposition. Yet another potential solution would combine results for two different propositions (three or more might get cluttered) in one map, using hue to denote different permutations of results (yes on both, no on both, yes only on one, yes only on the other).
Although it is effective in conveying the two pieces of information it is intended to, this visualization's interactivity has some problems. More specifically, it is not as powerful as it could be if it made full use of interactive possibilities. First of all, there is the minor problem that without the clarifying article, the small figures along the side are too understated; the power of this figure comes from the very fact that it is spatially at odds with the statistics, which convey a much narrower margin. A simple solution of bigger text might solve this problem. The broader problem, however, is that it fails to take advantage of small multiples. A reasonable question one might want to ask of the web page featuring this graphic is: "How do the districts who voted for Prop X compare to those who voted for Prop Y?" Currently, the best way to answer such a question is to toggle back and forth between links, requiring lots of short-term memory and attention to disparate detail from the user. The user can also click on a county to see a data table for that county, and compare numerical figures on the county level, which also has its drawbacks. What if the user wants to see a visible correlation?
A better solution would be to have a comparison tool, using two (or perhaps even more) maps side by side, each illustrating the results for a different proposition. Yet another potential solution would combine results for two different propositions (three or more might get cluttered) in one map, using hue to denote different permutations of results (yes on both, no on both, yes only on one, yes only on the other).
No comments:
Post a Comment