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.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)