« Could-be-light entertainment | Main | The Tufte count »

Comments

zbicyclist

Pretty funny. As a minor note, there's an unnecessary shift of scale here from cm to m.

Shown:
63cm
68cm
90cm
1.2m
1.5m
1.8m

Better?
63cm
68cm
90cm
120cm
150cm
180cm

or
.6m
.7m
.9m
1.2m
1.5m
1.8m

Or is there some metric convention I'm missing.

derek

Speaking of data graphics of giant flightless bird silhouettes, Mike Dickison of giantflightlessbirds.com has started blogging at Pictures of Numbers again after a hiatus, and gives tips on how to make your own silhouettes for data graphics.

The tips are for the expensive Adobe Illustrator, but I got similar results using the much cheaper photomanipulation software Paint Shop Pro. Excel can import either .eps or .wmf vector graphics into bubble charts for sizing, although getting the scaling right can be tricky.

Clint

You know, it's funny but I think that your reader's reaction, and the presumed confusion of this graphic has more to do with the viewers' state of mind than anything. I don't know if I was tipped off by reading the post in bloglines (sans image) or what, but I had no problem interpreting the graphic and wasn't forcibly reminded of the whole "ascent of man" type graphic by the graphic itself, the accompanying text was what made me think about the casual similarity...

Kaiser

zbicyclist: having grown up with the metric scale, I have to say this is an example of where it excels. Because of the simple 1:100 conversion, it really doesn't matter much the switch from centimeters to meters; the significant digits don't change. If it were inches and feet, then it's more of a problem.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR.

See my Youtube and Flickr.

Book Blog



Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read



Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter

Residues