4 ms·
I agree ... they explain "This type of visualization is similar to pie charts but has a much higher dynamic range". So it's true that it is better than pie cha
by Isamu 8y ago
I agree ... they explain "This type of visualization is similar to pie charts but has a much higher dynamic range".
So it's true that it is better than pie charts, which are horrible and inexplicably popular. All they emphasize is that the total adds up to 100%.
But it is still hard to compare relative areas even with the Voronoi. Comparing bar height is easier, but not sexy.
- rcoveson 8y agoI disagree. Comparing bar heights with large dynamic range requires vanishingly small bars or a graph that doesn't fit on one screen, both of which inhibit intuition about relative size. I don't know that that would be the case with this particular data, but I can certainly imagine a dataset whose data would fit easily when expressed as two dimensional areas but would become too large for a screen or too small for a pixel when rendered as one dimensional objects.
- Isamu 8y ago>Comparing bar heights with large dynamic range requires vanishingly small bars True. It is nice that the smallest parts don't have to all appear as similarly tiny slivers. Comparing areas, though, is not a strength of human perception. It would be interesting to test a population of users, given a Voronoi diagram, to estimate the apparent percentage of each area. And it is instructive that in the paper they still resort to a second, zoomed-in view that breaks down the smallest subsets. You'd want to do the same no matter the representation.