The long awaited launch of Apple's newest piece of portable technology has arrived. A step up from the iPod Touch and iPhone and a notch down from a Macbook, the iPad lies somewhere in between. Expected to be a hit, skeptics wondered how much the iPad would live up to expectations of being a extremely portable and suave computing device. According to an article by USA Today, the iPad is a raging success, although staunch "technological types" are sticking to their skepticism for the time being.
While the iPad offers a smooth and lustrous eye-popping facade, it is still in the first generation of it's model. Looking at what it has to offer, it merely presents itself as an unconventional, ideological device that has yet to have the kinks worked out. That is not to say it is a horrible buy, but more or less to suggest that as with Apple's line of iPod's it holds great promise for future models.
Gripes most have with the 1st gen model of the iPad are it's lack of Flash support and lack of keyboard (which is a separate buy needing a dock). The variations in models at this point are basically in size and whether or not you want 3G functionality, which hasn't hit the markets yet in the initial release of the iPad.
According to the table in a sub-article of USA Today's story, the cons of functionality weigh in against the Pro's of it's sleek style. If you're in the market for a sexy and bold version of the iPod Touch/ iPhone with web surfing and ebook functionality, all while having some extra pocket cash the iPad is probably a great buy for you. On the other hand, if you want more computing ability you should stick with a computer for the time being.
Slate/ Tablet PC's are catching on fast in the market, with competitors offering similar products with more functionality. It's only a matter of when, not if, Apple will come out with a better next-gen model of the iPad, hopefully including usb ports, Flash capability, and the ability to multitask with programs. While the release of the iPad has been quite successful, there is room for improvement and hopefully in the near future 2nd and 3rd gen iPad's will be hitting the market that will replace the need for laptop computing for the general to sub-advanced levels of users.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Misleading Information About American's Favorite Animal
How do you feel about pets? When asked this question most would think there would be more than two categories of animals to choose from. But, not the case for this USA Today graph. This graph was creatively prepared but the content it delivers and the title chosen don’t work to make it very newsworthy.
This graph provides only four options for pollers’ to choose from when asked “How we feel about Pets?” I think the question is a little misleading according to the information provided. The Graph only contains Like Both, Like only dogs, Like only cats or Dislike both. These categories don’t leave much room for any other animal to be considered when trying to find out American’s favorite pets. Also, next to the graph a generalization is concluded from the information provided saying, “Most American’s like both dogs and cats.” I don’t think this is a very fair conclusion to make when no other animals were included in this survey.
It is obvious that this graph’s wording and categories could use some revising, but besides that there are some positive qualities we can focus on. The illustration of a dog giving a cat bunny ears is attention grabbing to viewers flipping through the site. Also, using a house to display the graphs bars is another creative way to present these findings. The graph is also very easy to read and the information is well organized on the page. But other than that, I don’t see this graph providing any newsworthy information.
All in all, I don’t think I would say this is a very useful or reliable graph to consider. The title may lure viewers in, but I don’t think the content provided relays any important information to readers. So, other than this graph including a well thought out illustration, I don’t think it carries much credibility or purpose.
Annoying Additional Airline Baggage Charges
In the past few years many airlines have established an additional baggage charge. This charge generally ranges from $8-$24 depending on the airline and their policies. This charge does not come without complaint from many consumers who have become fed up with charge after charge added onto their already pricey airline ticket. Savvy Sugar has posted this chart to show consumers what airlines let you check bags for free and how many and how much additional bags cost http://www.savvysugar.com/Airlines-Increase-Fees-Additional-Baggage-1124326.
This chart makes an easy visual for consumers to analyze in order to understand who charges more for a fee that is already frowned upon. the consumer is able to see how much they will have to pay if they need to check three bags or if their bag exceeds 55 pounds. It is also easy for the consumer to compare airlines in one simple chart according to baggage charges.
On the other hand, this chart does not come without flaw. This chart is only able to show the consumer how much they will have to pay if they exceed 55 pounds or need to check 3 bags. The chart shows the variation in free bags checked throughout the different airlines. Some let you check zero bags for free and others accomodate and enable you to check one to two bags for free. The chart becomes confusing when it jumps from zero bags checked for free to showing you how much three bags would cost you. what if you only wanted to check one bag? How much would that cost? In order to be more effective this chart needs to show the consumers how much each additional bag costs instead of jumping to how much three bags cost.
In addition to this chart, I think, and many consumers would most likely agree with me, that these baggage charges are ridiculous. Not only does it make the consumer angry when they get to check in and realize that these charges have been added on or increased, but it also makes the job harder for the airline attendants who check you in. I cant imagine a job where you can expect half of the customers in a day to yell at you about something that you have no control over. I think that airlines should just add the baggage charge into the initial cost of the ticket to reduce confusion as to why the customer is paying for something that was once a standard idea that if you bought a plane ticket your bag would also end up in that destination without any extra fees.
Airlines are businesses just like any other. I dont understand why there are so many complications within their systems. I think that there must be a way to reduce confusion for not only the customer but also their employees. I think these additional fees only increase the confusion for all involved. I feel like the idea of traveling with any airline is one of the most stressful experiences. I dont think i have ever traveled through an airport to find everyone happy with no disgruntled customers.
This chart makes an easy visual for consumers to analyze in order to understand who charges more for a fee that is already frowned upon. the consumer is able to see how much they will have to pay if they need to check three bags or if their bag exceeds 55 pounds. It is also easy for the consumer to compare airlines in one simple chart according to baggage charges.
On the other hand, this chart does not come without flaw. This chart is only able to show the consumer how much they will have to pay if they exceed 55 pounds or need to check 3 bags. The chart shows the variation in free bags checked throughout the different airlines. Some let you check zero bags for free and others accomodate and enable you to check one to two bags for free. The chart becomes confusing when it jumps from zero bags checked for free to showing you how much three bags would cost you. what if you only wanted to check one bag? How much would that cost? In order to be more effective this chart needs to show the consumers how much each additional bag costs instead of jumping to how much three bags cost.
In addition to this chart, I think, and many consumers would most likely agree with me, that these baggage charges are ridiculous. Not only does it make the consumer angry when they get to check in and realize that these charges have been added on or increased, but it also makes the job harder for the airline attendants who check you in. I cant imagine a job where you can expect half of the customers in a day to yell at you about something that you have no control over. I think that airlines should just add the baggage charge into the initial cost of the ticket to reduce confusion as to why the customer is paying for something that was once a standard idea that if you bought a plane ticket your bag would also end up in that destination without any extra fees.
Airlines are businesses just like any other. I dont understand why there are so many complications within their systems. I think that there must be a way to reduce confusion for not only the customer but also their employees. I think these additional fees only increase the confusion for all involved. I feel like the idea of traveling with any airline is one of the most stressful experiences. I dont think i have ever traveled through an airport to find everyone happy with no disgruntled customers.
Monday, April 5, 2010
NatGeo shows us how precious our water is.
even though there are 366 million trillion gallons of water on planet earth, humans are, surprisingly enough, still managing to take this precious resource for granted.
National Geographic released a special issue of their magazine this month entitled "water: our thirsty world" to showcase this growing problem. this issue details the ways that people use water, where country's water supplies come from, how we are using our water sources inefficiently, and how we are changing the ways to use and preserve this life-giving natural resource.
along with the special release of their magazine this month, they are also using the National Geographic website to inform the public about our earthly drought. one link in particular, really caught my attention. titled the hidden water we use, this graphic illustrates the magnitude of water consumption that is necessary to sustain living beings. honestly, it was pretty eye opening.
the graphic is a slide reel that shows us how much water certain animals, crops, gases, and even power sources need to be sustained.
a few of these products, in particular, caught my attention. rice, for instance, was a real shocker. rice production around the world, uses 1,350 trillion cubic feet of water annually; this accounts for 21% of our global crop production. and while this is only 21% of our global crop production and not water supply or freshwater supply, 1,350 trillion cubic feet of water is still pretty big number to wrap your head around. it is also an important percentage when considering that 70% of the world's freshwater is used to make crops.
two other products that made me think twice about where our water is going were the cow and the pig. 1 pound of beef requires nearly 1,800 gallons of water. that is not 1,800 gallons of water per cow, that is per pound. pigs too, surprised me. they need 576 pounds of water for every pound.
now this isn't saying that we should stop feeding our cows and pigs. don't get me wrong, i'm trying to eat me some steak and bacon for breakfast. it just gives people an idea of how much water is used.
water is obviously a precious commodity. there is no doubt that it keeps us alive, along with many other living organisms as well. we will always need to use this resource to grow crops and to sustain animals. what this graphic is trying to do and what it does successfully is show us why we need to take water conservation seriously. there will always be a need for water. just turn off the faucet when you're brushing your teeth, fix the leaking bathtub, and find ways to conserve water. National Geographic is merely showing the importance to not be wasteful of water and to understand how necessary it is for us and the world.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Graphic on Incarceration Rates
http://www.usatoday.com/news/snapshot.htm?section=M&label=2010-03-16-clunkers
There is a graphic pertaining to the incarceration rates in prisons under the news tab of USA Today's snapshots section (graphic 18/20).
The graphic relates directly to what the article is talking about. It is a picture of a simple prison and portrays the two lowest and highest states per 100, 000 residents. I don't think that this graphic is all that effective. It basically reminds you of what a prison would look like and many of us already know or have some kind of an idea of what one would entail. The way the statistics are placed on the graphic are very vague and vulerable. Looking at the graphic almost makes me think it is pointless they could just state that Maine has the lowest and Louisiana the highest. The graphic is also uneffective because it shows almost a cute version of a prison. There is nothing shocking or eye catching about the portrayal of the prison one could almost think that it is a brick house with a huge chimney. When presenting such high incarceration rates the graphic should reflect the negative aspect of such rates not that Lousisiana has the most people living in cute little prisons. This graphic sugar coats the fact that there are such high incarceration rates in the U.S., therefore not effectively delivering the shocking rates to the viewers.
There is a graphic pertaining to the incarceration rates in prisons under the news tab of USA Today's snapshots section (graphic 18/20).
The graphic relates directly to what the article is talking about. It is a picture of a simple prison and portrays the two lowest and highest states per 100, 000 residents. I don't think that this graphic is all that effective. It basically reminds you of what a prison would look like and many of us already know or have some kind of an idea of what one would entail. The way the statistics are placed on the graphic are very vague and vulerable. Looking at the graphic almost makes me think it is pointless they could just state that Maine has the lowest and Louisiana the highest. The graphic is also uneffective because it shows almost a cute version of a prison. There is nothing shocking or eye catching about the portrayal of the prison one could almost think that it is a brick house with a huge chimney. When presenting such high incarceration rates the graphic should reflect the negative aspect of such rates not that Lousisiana has the most people living in cute little prisons. This graphic sugar coats the fact that there are such high incarceration rates in the U.S., therefore not effectively delivering the shocking rates to the viewers.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
And the biggest beer selling holiday is..
If you had to guess which holiday is the biggest beer selling holiday, what would you say? Or would you even care? Well on this chart found on the USA Today website, you can find the chart that will give you all of your answers, or will it? This graphic proposes that most perhaps would think that the Super Bowl could be the largest selling beer "holiday."
The word "holiday," brings up the first problem with this graphic. I don't really think that it is fair to be comparing actual holidays like the 4th of July and Christmas, with the Super Bowl. To myself and most others I would not identify the Super Bowl as a holiday. All of the other top 9 seem to be actual holidays until it gets to the Super Bowl as 10th on the list. Also, it seems odd to me because it only shows the number of cases of beer sold. You have to keep in mind for Super Bowls many people go to bars to celebrate, so judging on cases bought doesn't seem to be all that accurate. Also, for many of the other holidays that were on the top they are more grill out type holidays where it would make sense to buy cases of beer. So in that case I think that it's odd that they make it seem like a big shock that the Super Bowl is number 10 on the list.
OK so now that we have the negative out of the way, there are a few things that this chart did positively. I can say that I liked how they laid out the information. It is organized in a nice way that is easy to read. It also only displays the information that is the most important and doesn't contain a bunch of extra clutter. Also, aside from the guy in the background holding a beer with a cheesy smile, the bright color is nice to attract attention.
All in all the quality of this graphic is just OK. I think it would be much better if it didn't include the Super Bowl as a "holiday," but that's just from my perspective. It is kind of an interesting thing to know but I wouldn't say it is one of most newsworthy things.
The word "holiday," brings up the first problem with this graphic. I don't really think that it is fair to be comparing actual holidays like the 4th of July and Christmas, with the Super Bowl. To myself and most others I would not identify the Super Bowl as a holiday. All of the other top 9 seem to be actual holidays until it gets to the Super Bowl as 10th on the list. Also, it seems odd to me because it only shows the number of cases of beer sold. You have to keep in mind for Super Bowls many people go to bars to celebrate, so judging on cases bought doesn't seem to be all that accurate. Also, for many of the other holidays that were on the top they are more grill out type holidays where it would make sense to buy cases of beer. So in that case I think that it's odd that they make it seem like a big shock that the Super Bowl is number 10 on the list.
OK so now that we have the negative out of the way, there are a few things that this chart did positively. I can say that I liked how they laid out the information. It is organized in a nice way that is easy to read. It also only displays the information that is the most important and doesn't contain a bunch of extra clutter. Also, aside from the guy in the background holding a beer with a cheesy smile, the bright color is nice to attract attention.
All in all the quality of this graphic is just OK. I think it would be much better if it didn't include the Super Bowl as a "holiday," but that's just from my perspective. It is kind of an interesting thing to know but I wouldn't say it is one of most newsworthy things.
Millennial generation more educated, less employed
We all know that our economy is continuing on a disasterous path. Many are out of work and struggling to find a good enough job to pay the bills. All that is being said is how hard it is to find a job, especially for recently graduated college students. The advice my generation gets is to stay in college as long as we can or at least until the economy gets better. The Millenial generation consists of 18 to 29 year olds and in an article featured in USA Today, "Study: Millennial generation more educated, less employed," it points out the differences in our generation compared to the past.
The charts next to the article, provided by Pew Research Center, depicted Millennials' most important things in their lives. The format was a bar graph with a percentage at the end of each bar. The categories were being a good parent 52%, having a successful marriage 30%, helping others in need 21%, owning a home 20%, living a very religious life 15%, having lots of free time 9%, and becoming famous 1%. This visual did not really relate to what the article was trying to make clear, which was how much this generation is educated, but at the same time make up the greatest share of unemployed. It seems like the chart, though clear, was pointless to add. It basically fills up the white space so it seems to be an important issue.
Another bar graph was shown below the first one. It's like USA Today couldn't think of a better way to present the information in a more mature way. The bar graph was designed to show the full-time employment by generation comparing Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers. It compared two years, 2006 and 2010. The graph basically summed up what the article said, Millennials have the highest percentage difference in employment over the years. This graph could be helpful to someone who is on the go and doesn't have time to read the article, but at the same time is extremely repetitive.
The article was interesting and newsworthy in itself, but the graphs really didn't support it as much as they could have. Each graph was easy to interpret, but irrelevant. I would have liked to see statistics that relate to the articles main point, not just meaningless percentages. I think USA Today needs to work on its images so that readers are drawn to both the articles and the visuals.
The charts next to the article, provided by Pew Research Center, depicted Millennials' most important things in their lives. The format was a bar graph with a percentage at the end of each bar. The categories were being a good parent 52%, having a successful marriage 30%, helping others in need 21%, owning a home 20%, living a very religious life 15%, having lots of free time 9%, and becoming famous 1%. This visual did not really relate to what the article was trying to make clear, which was how much this generation is educated, but at the same time make up the greatest share of unemployed. It seems like the chart, though clear, was pointless to add. It basically fills up the white space so it seems to be an important issue.
Another bar graph was shown below the first one. It's like USA Today couldn't think of a better way to present the information in a more mature way. The bar graph was designed to show the full-time employment by generation comparing Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers. It compared two years, 2006 and 2010. The graph basically summed up what the article said, Millennials have the highest percentage difference in employment over the years. This graph could be helpful to someone who is on the go and doesn't have time to read the article, but at the same time is extremely repetitive.
The article was interesting and newsworthy in itself, but the graphs really didn't support it as much as they could have. Each graph was easy to interpret, but irrelevant. I would have liked to see statistics that relate to the articles main point, not just meaningless percentages. I think USA Today needs to work on its images so that readers are drawn to both the articles and the visuals.
Rhosd Island Illustrates the Chaos
This image, which is the icon to open the article from USA Today, gives readers a good preview of what they are going to be reading. The image is set up as a scene portrait which is a very effective method in photography. The photo illustrates much of the chaos most businesses are facing as they make their way through the buildings after the storms that hit the east coast. The tumbling shelves and unused products which line the floors of this mans business is a good illustration of the emergency state that
The article talks a lot about the government aid which is now making itself present a few days after the storm. Also, they mention a lot of the damaged scenery and building structures the flooding has caused. The article quotes a lot of opinions and frustrated emotions
"If there is a part of the country that needed federal support, it's
Especially in a story like this graphical images are a key part of readers really understanding the importance of the article. Just reading about another city that has been damaged by Mother Nature does not have the same effect as being able to visualize the scene that the article is describing. There are all types of portraits which can be used to help illustrate an article and this icon was well selected to spark interest in the topic for views on USA Today. Readers are almost 50 percent more likely to read an article if they have an image to associate the topic with first.
New Fuel Standard Expectations for 2016
While scanning through the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, I came across an article, "New Federal Rules Require Improved Fuel Efficiency," the provided graph projected the expected fuel standards for 2016. Under these new standards, auto companies would have to produce vehicles that average 35 miles per gallon. The Obama administration says that this new standard will reduce carbon dioxide emissions and regulate greenhouse gases.
The picture on this page depicts the high-tech speedometer of the new Sonata Hybrid, but along with this image is a basic line graph which is used to show the anticipated new standards. The graph is pretty basic, it shows how the mileage per gallon in passenger cars and light trucks will steadily increase from 2011 to 2016. Since the news article already stated this fact in the story it's pretty pointless to design a graph based on the same information. By making a graph of the new fuel standards it makes the readers seem ignorant to what they just read.
The graph is simple because it is not cluttered with cute images or contain information overload. But, upon farther inspection it does have its flaws. The graph states that passenger cars contribute to 24% gain in the fuel economy, light trucks 18% and combined it's 24% but what does this all mean? what is percent gain in fuel economy? where are these statistics coming from? how did they estimate that in 2016 passenger cars will be running at 37.8 miles per gallon? and why is the graph limited to just passenger cars and light trucks? This new standard effects all auto companies, so all vehicle types should be included. The graph complicates the story instead of adding to it, and we are left with more questions than answers.
-Dia Vang
The picture on this page depicts the high-tech speedometer of the new Sonata Hybrid, but along with this image is a basic line graph which is used to show the anticipated new standards. The graph is pretty basic, it shows how the mileage per gallon in passenger cars and light trucks will steadily increase from 2011 to 2016. Since the news article already stated this fact in the story it's pretty pointless to design a graph based on the same information. By making a graph of the new fuel standards it makes the readers seem ignorant to what they just read.
The graph is simple because it is not cluttered with cute images or contain information overload. But, upon farther inspection it does have its flaws. The graph states that passenger cars contribute to 24% gain in the fuel economy, light trucks 18% and combined it's 24% but what does this all mean? what is percent gain in fuel economy? where are these statistics coming from? how did they estimate that in 2016 passenger cars will be running at 37.8 miles per gallon? and why is the graph limited to just passenger cars and light trucks? This new standard effects all auto companies, so all vehicle types should be included. The graph complicates the story instead of adding to it, and we are left with more questions than answers.
-Dia Vang
Business meetings..do we care where they happen?
Business meetings take place every day, all over the world, in all sorts of locations. USA Today's graphic "Top locations for off-site business meetings" helps readers understand just what percentage of these meetings happen where. This isn't just seemingly unimportant, but completely useless information. In case you thought that most executives met on the golf course, think again. With the help of this bright graphic, you can see that most professionals prefer to meet with clients at a restaurant.
The graphic shows two people dressed in white sitting across a table from one another. One of the clip art characters is even wearing sunglasses. Now I can't speak for everyone, but this is not the image that pops into my brain when I hear the term 'high-level executive.' Had they shown two people in suits, maybe. But even still, this graphic doesn't come close to being useful.
I had to think to myself, "did I seriously just read this in a newspaper?" I mean, USA Today is by no means regarded for their astute journalism and newsworthy stories, but this seems a little over the top. It's common knowledge that business meetings happen in restaurants. People eat, it's what we do. And when we eat, we talk. And sometimes we talk business. Thanks for the insight, USA Today.
-Elizabeth
young career women choose money over play
With the recent economy it's easy to understand why young career women, or any person, would need to choose work or over free time. According to the USA Today Snapshot "What Young Career Women Choose to Give up" 54% of these women said they choose to give up some of their personal time for more money, and 46% said they'd give up some salary for more personal time.
This information seems to make sense at first glance. The graph and title imply that women are faced with this choice between work and personal time, however, the informational sentence on the side states that 46% of career women 22 to 35 years old report that they currently have an equal balance of work and personal life. The fact that these don't match up make it confusing overall.
If 46% of women choose to give up salary for personal time then how can 46% of them say that they have an equal balance? You have to think about it just a few seconds longer to understand, but for the internet reader, those seconds are precious. It would have only take an extra word or two to make the overall effect concise.
-Samantha
This information seems to make sense at first glance. The graph and title imply that women are faced with this choice between work and personal time, however, the informational sentence on the side states that 46% of career women 22 to 35 years old report that they currently have an equal balance of work and personal life. The fact that these don't match up make it confusing overall.
If 46% of women choose to give up salary for personal time then how can 46% of them say that they have an equal balance? You have to think about it just a few seconds longer to understand, but for the internet reader, those seconds are precious. It would have only take an extra word or two to make the overall effect concise.
-Samantha
Friday, April 2, 2010
Tournament Expansion
Over the years, the NCAA Tournament has been one of my favorite sporting events. It is full of traditions, excitement, and memories. This year has been another great year for the Tournament but it could be the last year of the Tournament as we know it. Reporters from across the country are now saying that the Tournament is most likely going to expand its field of 65 teams to 96 teams starting in the 2011 season. A move like this would be a drastic change to the event I have grown to know and love.
The idea of moving the tournament to 96 teams is made to give a lot of mid major teams a chance at national glory. It is not expected to have a huge impact on potential National Championship contenders, for the champion usually comes from one of the top 32 teams in the nation. NCAA Vice President Greg Shaheen expanded on this point saying, "The champion typically does not come from a certain portion of the field, however, the opportunity exists [for a lower seeded team to win the title]". An article further explaining how the expansion will work can be found here.
All in all, I do not really like the idea of the NCAA Tournament expanding to 96 teams. I feel this will ruin the traditions of the Tournament and even make it more confusing. This plan allows average to below average teams to compete for a National. Championship. This should not be the case, for I feel only the elite teams should be able to compete for the title just like in every other sport. I hope the committee thinks long and hard about this before making such a drastic change. Until then, I will be enjoying the Final Four this weekend.
-Tim
The idea of moving the tournament to 96 teams is made to give a lot of mid major teams a chance at national glory. It is not expected to have a huge impact on potential National Championship contenders, for the champion usually comes from one of the top 32 teams in the nation. NCAA Vice President Greg Shaheen expanded on this point saying, "The champion typically does not come from a certain portion of the field, however, the opportunity exists [for a lower seeded team to win the title]". An article further explaining how the expansion will work can be found here.
All in all, I do not really like the idea of the NCAA Tournament expanding to 96 teams. I feel this will ruin the traditions of the Tournament and even make it more confusing. This plan allows average to below average teams to compete for a National. Championship. This should not be the case, for I feel only the elite teams should be able to compete for the title just like in every other sport. I hope the committee thinks long and hard about this before making such a drastic change. Until then, I will be enjoying the Final Four this weekend.
-Tim
More hospital stays, More flawed graphs
USA Today recently posted a snapshot of the number (in millions) of Americans being admitted to hospitals from 1997 to 2007. The snapshot explains that there was a 14% increase in admission to hospitals in those years. Although the graph is fairly easy to read and comprehend, I found when I really look at it, there are parts that just dont seem to fit.
The picture in this snapshot is of a man laying in a hospital bed, hooked up to a machine, with a nice big 'ole' smile on his face. He looks really peaceful laying there. with his his hands propped loosely on top of him, he just looks so relaxed. This does not resemble reality in the slightest bit when it comes to Americans actually being in the hospital. Usually people are nervous, in pain, sad, or even angry when they are hooked up to a machine in the hospital. I doubt they are actually happy to be there.
Another thing I noticed was the caption on the side that talked about how most hospitalizations involve depression or a mood disorder. This confuses me when put right next to the picture of the man hooked up to a machine in the hospital. People get hooked up to machines because they are depressed or have a mood disorder?? That's news to me! I don't think the 2 things rlate to eachother- the caption and the picture. That mixed with the unrealistic expression of the patient in the picture add up to this being a flawed graph.
The picture in this snapshot is of a man laying in a hospital bed, hooked up to a machine, with a nice big 'ole' smile on his face. He looks really peaceful laying there. with his his hands propped loosely on top of him, he just looks so relaxed. This does not resemble reality in the slightest bit when it comes to Americans actually being in the hospital. Usually people are nervous, in pain, sad, or even angry when they are hooked up to a machine in the hospital. I doubt they are actually happy to be there.
Another thing I noticed was the caption on the side that talked about how most hospitalizations involve depression or a mood disorder. This confuses me when put right next to the picture of the man hooked up to a machine in the hospital. People get hooked up to machines because they are depressed or have a mood disorder?? That's news to me! I don't think the 2 things rlate to eachother- the caption and the picture. That mixed with the unrealistic expression of the patient in the picture add up to this being a flawed graph.
Obesity Complications Chart Complicates the Story
The USA Today article, Study: Small Soda Taxes Don't Dent Child Obesity, discusses the futility of recent efforts by some U.S. states to raise the tax on soft drinks in order to prevent childhood obesity. The graphic that accompanies the article shows the outline of an overweight boy. There are six numbered dots on the boy's body, each representing a separate body part. By clicking on a dot, a description pops up which lists the effects of childhood obesity on that body part.
I believe that the graphic itself is good. Although addressing an unfortunate topic, using the overweight boy and the dots is a pretty good idea to get the point across. Also, by listing information for one body part at a time, it really cuts down on clutter and makes it easier to read.
Although the graphic looks good, its relation to the article is suspect. Childhood obesity is discussed in the article, but not as much as the graphic would lead you to believe. Instead, the author spends most of the article bombarding the reader with numerous percentages and dollar amounts, concerning which states raised taxes and by how much. In light of this information I half expected this article to include a series of charts depicting the rise in taxes. Although that would have been very boring and unoriginal, at least it would have been related to what was in the article.
-Audrey
I believe that the graphic itself is good. Although addressing an unfortunate topic, using the overweight boy and the dots is a pretty good idea to get the point across. Also, by listing information for one body part at a time, it really cuts down on clutter and makes it easier to read.
Although the graphic looks good, its relation to the article is suspect. Childhood obesity is discussed in the article, but not as much as the graphic would lead you to believe. Instead, the author spends most of the article bombarding the reader with numerous percentages and dollar amounts, concerning which states raised taxes and by how much. In light of this information I half expected this article to include a series of charts depicting the rise in taxes. Although that would have been very boring and unoriginal, at least it would have been related to what was in the article.
-Audrey
3D Movie Trend
This past year has seen a marked increase in the desire for 3D films in part due to the success of Avatar (2009) which has created a seemingly never-ending stream of studios wanting to cash in on the craze. USA Today has ranked the top four, yes only four, highest-grossing 3D films in this rather uninspired snapshot.
The graphic portrays only the top four highest-grossing 3D films domestically based on their earnings in millions. I found it funny that they depicted people with their mouths open in shock like 3D is an amazing or literally "jaw dropping" experience. Avatar, of course, takes the top spot with $595 million due to its innovative use of 3D. Animated films seem to attract a larger audience for their 3D versions than live-action since the other three films on this list are all animated. In second place is Up (2009) with $293 million which is a little less than half of Avatar's earnings.
The illustrations presented in the graphic are bland with simply the same four images displayed at differing heights to exhibit the earnings like a bar graph. The colors used are also very subdued with all of the text in black. Though I will admit it makes the graphic slightly more noticeable than a simple bar graph would have been. However, the price to see a film in 3D has increased in recent years which calls into question the accuracy of this graph. Are that many more Americans going to see films in 3D or is it the rising prices that make it seem that way? The graph is too simple because it does not give us any details behind the numbers.
This topic does not really have an impact on our lives, and as such isn't what I would consider a newsworthy edition to a supposedly "news" section of USA Today. Furthermore, the graphic wasn't all that effective in describing the rise of 3D films in America today or catching my attention.
Melissa Wesloski
The graphic portrays only the top four highest-grossing 3D films domestically based on their earnings in millions. I found it funny that they depicted people with their mouths open in shock like 3D is an amazing or literally "jaw dropping" experience. Avatar, of course, takes the top spot with $595 million due to its innovative use of 3D. Animated films seem to attract a larger audience for their 3D versions than live-action since the other three films on this list are all animated. In second place is Up (2009) with $293 million which is a little less than half of Avatar's earnings.
The illustrations presented in the graphic are bland with simply the same four images displayed at differing heights to exhibit the earnings like a bar graph. The colors used are also very subdued with all of the text in black. Though I will admit it makes the graphic slightly more noticeable than a simple bar graph would have been. However, the price to see a film in 3D has increased in recent years which calls into question the accuracy of this graph. Are that many more Americans going to see films in 3D or is it the rising prices that make it seem that way? The graph is too simple because it does not give us any details behind the numbers.
This topic does not really have an impact on our lives, and as such isn't what I would consider a newsworthy edition to a supposedly "news" section of USA Today. Furthermore, the graphic wasn't all that effective in describing the rise of 3D films in America today or catching my attention.
Melissa Wesloski
Workers' perks not so newsworthy
While scanning through USA Today's snapshot section, I came across one snapshot that seemed to contradict itself- "What small perks workers want". First of all, the image that first catches your eyes is a man with his legs propped up on the desk, all relaxed and laid back. If i were a boss, I most certainly would not give any of my employees any kind of perks if this is how they showed their work ethic, or lack there of.
As you scroll down the image, the graph is cleverly morphed into the desk that the man has his legs propped up on. This depicts more of employees' demands rather than actual perks that they deserve. The image makes it seem as if it is an employees right to get the persk listed in the graph. This is a terrible misrepresentation of the actual meaning of this snapshot.
Alright, bad imagery-that's fine, let's mover on to what the graph says. The small perks that workers want to "feel more valued" range from free soda and water to donuts for meetings. Seriously, this is considered news? Workers wanting free donuts because they are forced to sit in on a meeting they are already getting paid for. Let's be honest here USA Today, this story is about as newsworthy as "Which celebrity would make the most over-the-top Easter egg?".
Lindsey Arndt
As you scroll down the image, the graph is cleverly morphed into the desk that the man has his legs propped up on. This depicts more of employees' demands rather than actual perks that they deserve. The image makes it seem as if it is an employees right to get the persk listed in the graph. This is a terrible misrepresentation of the actual meaning of this snapshot.
Alright, bad imagery-that's fine, let's mover on to what the graph says. The small perks that workers want to "feel more valued" range from free soda and water to donuts for meetings. Seriously, this is considered news? Workers wanting free donuts because they are forced to sit in on a meeting they are already getting paid for. Let's be honest here USA Today, this story is about as newsworthy as "Which celebrity would make the most over-the-top Easter egg?".
Lindsey Arndt
Beers by the Bushel
Americans certainly seem to be notorious for celebrating their holidays by indulging in drinks. Even now certain events are well known reasons for inebriation. USA Today had a poll showing the top ten beer holidays.
The illustrations are not necessarily that exciting, only showing a cartoon figure holding a glass of beer and he looks generally happy. The cases they show are counted by the millions and placed in order based on holiday or event. First place is July 4th, a well known holiday for celebrating our country by watching fireworks while enjoying a brew. The Super Bowl takes number 10 with about 15 million less cases than July 4th.
The way the chart is set up is rather bland. It just has the image of the boy with the beer, and the only bright color is yellow. The way the numbers are presented isn't very interesting, just simply placed in two rows of five. Adding color to the title might have made it more appealing and noticeable. Still, once you notice the chart, it's hard not to stop and quickly read though it. The illustration isn't the most appealing, but it still is better than just showing the rankings in a glass of beer.
Overall, I find it funny that this is part of USA Today's News category for Snapshots. Clearly the relevence of which holiday is celebrated with beer doesn't really have an impact on our lives. For some it may, but honestly if I had continued life without knowing that Christmas was in sixth place I would probably be fine. It's an interesting fact but I'm still skeptical of how it fits in to the category.
The illustrations are not necessarily that exciting, only showing a cartoon figure holding a glass of beer and he looks generally happy. The cases they show are counted by the millions and placed in order based on holiday or event. First place is July 4th, a well known holiday for celebrating our country by watching fireworks while enjoying a brew. The Super Bowl takes number 10 with about 15 million less cases than July 4th.
The way the chart is set up is rather bland. It just has the image of the boy with the beer, and the only bright color is yellow. The way the numbers are presented isn't very interesting, just simply placed in two rows of five. Adding color to the title might have made it more appealing and noticeable. Still, once you notice the chart, it's hard not to stop and quickly read though it. The illustration isn't the most appealing, but it still is better than just showing the rankings in a glass of beer.
Overall, I find it funny that this is part of USA Today's News category for Snapshots. Clearly the relevence of which holiday is celebrated with beer doesn't really have an impact on our lives. For some it may, but honestly if I had continued life without knowing that Christmas was in sixth place I would probably be fine. It's an interesting fact but I'm still skeptical of how it fits in to the category.
Incarceration Rates
I think this is one of USA Today's classier charts, although that's not saying much. I'm glad that they used the image of a prison instead of, say, groupings of people in orange jump suits, to show which states have the highest and lowest incarceration rates. The chart shows valuable information that we, as citizens, need to know but rarely do.
But I do believe that they should not use a childish image in this chart. Incarceration is a serious matter, and they shouldn't have lightened it up with a colorful picture of the prison. It makes it into something it's not. Every year more of our tax dollars go towards the upkeep of prisons in comparison to schools. The way things are set up, inmates get treated better than school kids do.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
No News to Me: USA’s Shift Towards Urban Life
In USA Today’s graphic “USA’s shift from rural to urban,” the first thing that came to mind was: well, duh. Although 21% of the nation still lives in a rural area, I believe that it is a well known fact that urban living has been on the rise since 1920. The graphic however does do a good job in emphasizing the steady incline that the statistics have taken from 1920 to the 2000’s. The author uses little cowboy and business woman animations for visual supplementation, in case any of the readers out their needed this aid.
The most important thing about this graphic is to show the decline of the rural population; 49% in 1920, 37% in 1960 and 21% in 2000. Supplied with the contrary, the incline of the urban living, it shows the viewer that 79% of the United States population is in this category. The kitschy theme does give more of a visual appeal than any old bar graph, but it gives off more of a casual tone. The two characters shown on this graph also demonstrate a trend that has risen since the 20’s; the urban, career driven animation is a black woman, and the farmer is a white male. It makes it as if this graph has a dual message, although not clearly stated. Women, specifically black women have been given more opportunities in the business world than the early 1900’s.
USA Today is known for their use of color and reporting on irrelevant stories, and it did seem that this graph was random. When in the news category and you can either choose “what small perks workers want” or “USA’s shift from rural to urban,” it seemed clear that this had more news value. I think the graphic means to educate readers on the large percentage of the population who live in urban areas, if they have been hiding under a rock for a while.
Stephanie Orlowski
Rural to Urban Graphic Falls Short
The USA Today snapshot depicting America's shift from a rural to an urban population is not only cluttered and difficult to look at, it's virtually useless. The graphic contrasts the rise in urban living to the steady decline of more rural communities. However, the criss-cross pattern of the image along with the abundance of numbers makes the image visually unappealing as well as confusing. The image also includes "cutesy" pictures of a farmer and a corporate "city slicker", which not only make the image seem childish, but also adds to the overall cluttered appearance.
Secondly, without the caption included on the outside of the graphic, I would've had no clue what the image was even trying to portray. It's titled "USA's Shift from Rural to Urban", but shift from rural to urban what? Fashion? Jobs? Landscapes? Only the description included on the side of the image explains that the graphic is depicting a shift in rural to urban populations.
But, all of this even fails to mention that the message of this graphic is virtually obsolete. The chart depicts a 12% decrease in rural populations from the year 1920 to 1960. Not only is that a relatively insignificant decline to occur in the course of 40 years, but that's to be expected. Think of our country's developments in technology and architecture. Of course we've made a shift to a more urban lifestyle. It'd be more surprising if this change hadn't occurred. With progress comes change. This shift is completely natural.
While I do appreciate USA Today's attempt to share this "news worthy" topic, as well as their adorable clip-art picture of a farmer in overalls, this graphic definitely falls short. With a confusing image and a pointless message, it's safe to say that this chart isn't "news worthy". It's just a waste of space.
Secondly, without the caption included on the outside of the graphic, I would've had no clue what the image was even trying to portray. It's titled "USA's Shift from Rural to Urban", but shift from rural to urban what? Fashion? Jobs? Landscapes? Only the description included on the side of the image explains that the graphic is depicting a shift in rural to urban populations.
But, all of this even fails to mention that the message of this graphic is virtually obsolete. The chart depicts a 12% decrease in rural populations from the year 1920 to 1960. Not only is that a relatively insignificant decline to occur in the course of 40 years, but that's to be expected. Think of our country's developments in technology and architecture. Of course we've made a shift to a more urban lifestyle. It'd be more surprising if this change hadn't occurred. With progress comes change. This shift is completely natural.
While I do appreciate USA Today's attempt to share this "news worthy" topic, as well as their adorable clip-art picture of a farmer in overalls, this graphic definitely falls short. With a confusing image and a pointless message, it's safe to say that this chart isn't "news worthy". It's just a waste of space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)