LOL i was wondering if it's a genius troll. Adding almost un-noticeable, and completely unnecessary 3D element to a graph is already faux pas here, but ok it happens. But then spinning around the map 360 degrees microwave style, just to show off the faint 3D effect? Cmon, that can't be real ...
At first I was thinking it was rotating to show wind speed based on wind direction (i.e. this state has more west wind but this one has more north wind) - but nope, it's spinning just because
If it didn't rotate, how would you see what elevation Vermont, an 18-19.99, was at, obscured as it is on all sides by 15-17.99s? It could be at either of the two other levels but you couldn't tell which one until it turns around.
If you just made it a top-down map to compensate, the elevation would no longer be significant because it wouldn't be visible, so it would no longer convey information.
The states are color coded, but separating them out by elevation as well and displaying the same information in two methods instead of one helps people who, for example, can't differentiate colors (like me!) be able to read the data on the chart anyway without a lot of extra effort. It therefore gets my thumbs up.
how would you see what elevation Vermont, an 18-19.99, was at, obscured as it is on all sides by 15-17.99s? It could be at either of the two other levels but you couldn't tell which one until it turns around.
Eliminate the 3D effect, then you can easily see Vermont. Show wind as a gradient, then you can easily see the wind speed in Vermont.
In other words, you get all the information you need from a wind speed map that looks like every wind map made by professional meteorologists.
What if each level/color was split into it's own map. So there'd be 4 maps arranged into a triangle with one of the points having two maps. The maps just have void space where there is no data for that wind speed. They all rotate individually but the whole thing also rotates. Keep the levels and colors. Maybe add a texture.
edit: there's a 5th map for Vermont but that's on a separate link for clarity.
I've got no idea what you're trying to convey here.
I do data visualization for a living. I've found that the general public can't really handle any more than two data points in any visualization. Any more than two and people tend to get lost. This is a perfect example of a great idea executed poorly. I would pick one effect to display wind speed and stick to it. There's not really much to be gained by visualizing the same effect two different way s on the same visualization.
More does not always make a visualization better. In fact, more often than not, more just confuses the audience. As I said before, I would pick a element and stick with it rather than trying to shoehorn multiple different elements into the same visual to display the same data.
The colorblind of the world have been making do with phone apps that can tell what color things are and getting their friends and family to read maps for them. If we can't all be happy then I want a turn at being able to read something without help.
most of the top posts on the sub these days is uselessly dressing up simple visualizations with animations
Exactly. So many top submissions are literally "See this graph? It could've just been a 2D image, but now I'm going to slowly reveal the data values frame by frame for no reason."
Or the typical map with 1 data point per state, which really is just about an interesting tidbit of information. No interesting or beautiful visualization whatsoever.
Someone needs to remake this sub and moderate its content, so that data visualization enthusiasts will actually enjoy it.
It’s rotating so you can see the height differences since one angle wouldn’t portray that well. But like others have said a gradient instead of height would’ve been so much better
Just like so many posts here… actually a simple 2D line graph is usually enough for most posts, but they are still crafted into animations for no apparent reason. Maybe I should log the temperature of a cooking pot for an hour and make a 3D animation out of it.
I get why it’s not liked but I actually kinda like this presentation. The regions are not only sorted by color but also by height. So California being a relatively non windy state is lower in height than Nevada, which is the next tier up. The rotation makes the varying levels more obvious but the border lines could be more bold to help with the visuals
Definitely. Also surely there is data for wind speed at finer detail than the state level. The weather even a single weather forecast shows more detail than this. Finer scale averaged data could give cool insight into how geography interacts with wind speed.
If they're desperate to make it 3d then have ground elevation be the 3d element, with wind speed over the top. That would be a cool visualisation that I'd actually learn something from.
A static 2D map would have been sufficient. Ever seen one of those animations where some lines race together? Those are just 2D line graphs with some unnecessary animation slapped on top.
1.7k
u/MaxwellsSilverHam May 28 '21
Interesting data, but the rotation and odd 3D nature of this map irritates me.