Question of Design and Data

Posted on 04. Jun, 2009 by Jess in death and taxes

First of all, thank you for your input on the previous design/data dilema. I feel confident I made the right choice for Death and Taxes 2010.

Now another data/design issue is before you.

In the previous dilemma, I had to figure out a way to account for the Stimulus funding since it was inseparable from each budget item. Well the data collection on the civilian side of things is complete and now it is on to the Department of Defense, which is 1/2 of the poster. There is no Stimulus or TARP funding in there so the previous issue is not an issue. But the DoD does get it’s own stimulus every year, its call the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) supplemental. Formally know as the Global War on Terror (GWOT).

In previous posters I had separated the OCO into its own category and broken it down as best as I could, even though the data was a bit murky. But for the 2010 budget data, it has conveniently been separated from each line item, which means I can differentiate it on every line item, instead of one central location.

Here is the format I propose.

We have the item name, followed by the dollar amount which is for the 2010 total (base line+OCO), then the first percentage is the increase from the 2009 total (baseline + OCO) and the second percentage is the increase of the 2010 baseline to the 2010 baseline + OCO, essentially its how much of the OCO is involved.

So, do you think this is an appropriate way to handle this data? Of course all of this will be explained in the legend.

And I have a follow up question for you all as well.

For the 2010 poster there will be two percentages per item. This adds length to each line of text which could make the poster a tighter fit or perhaps reduce the amount of info I can fit in there. One solution to reduce the line length is to remove the word “Billion” which is repeated 500 times through out the poster. Below are some removal options to consider. Do you think any of them would be appropriate? I will make sure that Billion is inferred in the legend explanation.

Or perhaps, the casual observer will just be confused by the unit-less numbers. Am I giving too much credit to the reader? Or not enough?

Thanks!

Tags: death and taxes, questions

10 Comments

Paul, June 4, 2009:

Cuts down on length without leaving the number unit-less. from a finance perspective, seeing the single letter “M” or “B” is most familiar.
Paul, June 4, 2009:

I prefer the “B”. Cuts down on length without leaving the number unit-less. Legends are okay, but it’s nice to have the information instantly recognized, wherever you are on the poster, right? From a finance perspective, seeing the single letter “M” or “B” is most familiar.
Steve, June 4, 2009:

From a non-finance perspective: I’m sure after seeing the whole poster the B would make sense to me, but for general views I would prefer “Billion” or, if too long, “Bil.” to make sure the viewer makes the connection. Plus I feel that just a “B” would take away some of the “umph” behind $BILLION!

Keep up the great work!
Becky, June 5, 2009:

A word regarding the usefulness of repetition:

The overwhelming presence of “Billion” on the poster to the side of the blog makes a significant point. It really hammers home the shear volume of money, making it seem bigger than if you were to reduce it or leave it out. If your purpose is merely to inform, the “B” would likely suffice, but the “Billion” really makes an impression.

My own (admittedly limited) experience designing visual communications has lead to a few conclusions:

1. More savvy viewers appreciate well-designed and simplified graphics because they can take it all in with a glance.

2. Less savvy viewers like them because they can actually make sense of them.

3. It is difficult to underestimate the literacy levels of viewers, even though your site fans probably have above-average literacy skills.

4. The most sophisticated viewers will often discount the importance of simplification. (They understand it, so what’s the problem?) Unfortunately, they are often the ones designing the graphics.

Keep up the great work. We need more people who realize the importance of good visual communication.
Jess, June 5, 2009:

thanks Becky et al.

I agree that having the word billion in there has some good impact. It also helps in sentence creation and connection. Seeing the poster and saying “wow, the Dept of Whatev is 43.502 Billion!” is easier than using your brain to make the extra step of tagging billion on to everything.

So I will do my best to keep billion in the picture.
KM, June 5, 2009:

Once again, my (relatively new) two cents….

1) Having two percentage figures without parentheses, brackets or something to differentiate #1 from #2 is visually confusing (…and I prefer/recc. just one percentage figure anyway…)

2) if you need to change “Billion” to “B” or “Bil”, make sure you put a dollar sign (”$”) next to the amount (ex: “$7.074B”)

3) Not sure what you decided on re: the “stimulus” issue but in general, I think its best to stick with one percentage figure representing total US funding each year. (in this case: 2009 vs. 2010 baseline + OCO).

Similar posters can be created to communicate the impact of intra-year comparisons. I imagine using the same poster layout but with unaffected line items “greyed out”.

If you ever need help making these “multiple/layered” posters interactive in Flash, then give me a yell…
TMWWMGKBH, June 11, 2009:

I think I would leave off the second percentage altogether. I had to read your description a couple of times to get it, so I think that it will be insufficient to just add something to the legend (besides, there’s already enough stuff there). Compare the 2010 (baseline + OCO) to the 2009 (baseline + OCO) and that will be sufficient. The OCO is really just a sub-part of the overarching 2010 budget anyway.
Bounce, June 16, 2009:

To me it looses it’s effect to shorten the word or leave it out completely. Instead of actually having a meaning they’ll ‘just’ become a bunch of numbers. Actually, I believe it’s what makes the poster what it is. I would hate to see it disappear.
J. Brad Hicks, June 22, 2009:

I’d rather see $x.xxB and $x.xxM if need be than to leave it out or shrink the font. But I’m more concerned about the fact that you’re dropping the GWOT as a category. Instead of showing military spending with two numbers or two percentages on a line, I think it would be more helpful and more useful, as well as more accurate, to keep the Afghan and Iraq wars as a separate area on the diagram; segregate all of those OCO numbers into their own section, please.
anna lee court, June 30, 2009:

I like the $x.xxB solution.

Love, Mom