Lots of ideas from readers have been gathering dust in my mailbox. Here are a bunch of links, with a few comments of mine.
This first link I'm not sure what to make of. I think the architects and graphic designers amongst you may be able to make sense of it. Not me. It came with this description: "dr. dr. crash and dr. trash of m-a-u-s-e-r
analyzed worlds most junk magazines and visualized their data." For the intrepid (and I claim no liability):
"Jetistics: The Analysis of Junk. The Junk of Analysis?"
This is yet another example of a map adding little or no value to the data. The presence of geographic data is not an excuse to give a lesson on maps.
It would be one thing if the geographic location helps the readers understand the data but in most such charts, the map merely says "Reader, I presume you are map illiterate, so let me tell you South Africa is at the southern tip of the African continent..."
Also notice that the bar charts are sorted by average size of invoices, which is definitely less meaningful than total amount invoiced. This, I suspect, is the failure to ask the pertinent question, which is at the top of the Trifecta checkup.
"19 Must-See Biotech Infographics", according to Kelly Davis of the BioBlogging Project.
#2 on this list is a chart (rather old data) on GM food, an issue of concern to me. In the Trifecta checkup, this addresses an important question, and displays very relevant data but uses a poor chart... too many colors, colors not carrying any meaing, hard-to-read labels.
Of the other links, these are more interesting: #10, #12, #17, #19, #8, #9.