Recent comments in /f/dataisbeautiful

NietzscheTheEchidna OP t1_j8di92x wrote

Reply to comment by BearlyAwesomeHeretic in The main setting of all movies, tv-series, games, books, etc. I have watched/played/read. [OC] by NietzscheTheEchidna

I think you're right that it looks to much like a blank map, although I feel like if the dot-sizes would increase a lot of parts of the map (like North-eastern US and England) would become to clustered and that there would be no room. I'am open for suggestions to solve this though :)

23

Coloradostoneman t1_j8dh8t2 wrote

Reply to comment by 40for60 in [OC] Sugarcane was first introduced to Brazil in 1532. Half a millennium later, the country produces over 700M tonnes yearly (roughly the same amount as all of Asia, and 7x the amount produced by Africa) by latinometrics

I know that. Having a stable farm sector is a pretty good hedge against famine. Much better than trying to store an infinite amount of corn.

Look, I don't like corn ethanol as a fuel. But the idea that it is causing people to starve is just absurd.

It can probably be stated accurately that a smaller percentage of humanity is calorie deprived today than at any point in history.

2

aayushch t1_j8dff9z wrote

Reply to comment by cjrmartin in [OC] %age of area covered by forests in Indian states by BlitzOrion

I still stand by my comment, that it is indeed frustrating and misleading and not a very good use of colours. However, I acknowledge that you did spend time on gathering this data and then charting it out and it takes effort and time for it, so I really do appreciate your work here. I also admit that I should have left more details so here you go:

  • The “%age” is misleading because it is ambiguous, that is, if you are referring to it as “percentage” or the “age” of the areas. A reader will have to read it multiple times and look at the legend to correlate what you intend to depict. Hence misleading and frustrating. A chart/visualisation loses value if it’s not intuitive. Drop the “age”
  • The use of colours is incorrect for two reasons. First it uses the same gradient all over. This is going to be an accessibility issue. Think about people who have colour blindness. They won’t be able to read your visualisation. There are tools online which help you see image/colours in different types of colour blindness modes. Use them to make your visualisation more accessible. Second, the choice of colour green as a context for areas which do not have any forests in them is misleading. Use of different shades of colours can depict “presence” or “absence” of data points on your visualisation and may help to make the legend self explanatory which enhances your chart.

I hope this helps.

1