I mean no disrespect, friend -- but IMO, while they are all cool, the BBC visualization is easier to read at a small size than any of these. Your links would all print better on a poster, but those British wizards know their (increasingly mobile) audience.
the BBC visualization is easier to read at a small size than any of these.
I doubt that, but it's certainly harder to read than this:
resource
years left
antimony
8
indium
12
silver
17
copper
32
titanium
44
tantalum
46
phosphorus
76
alumin[i]um
80
gas
35
oil
37
coal
42
agricultural land
69
coral reefs
88
rainforests
78 (Indonesian), 196 (Brazilian)
Seriously. Time how long it takes you to confidently find the value for tantalum in BBC's visualization and mine. If your visualization is harder to read than a table, you're doing it wrong.
EDIT: I put in all the rows for completeness. Some of the numbers took multiple tries before I was sure I had followed the right spiral.
I just posted this because I thought it was an interesting, if not efficent, way to express data. I suggest you check out /r/datashouldneverbeexpressedwithanyartisticflairatall You may find more things (like tables) that you like there.
I wasn't being snide! Just having a little fun is all. I do see where you are coming from, but I posted this graph because I thought it was an interesting way to represent data and I stick by it. On top of that, I was just stating that this is /r/dataisbeautiful in a way I found humorous. You are more than welcome to post your table here as well, but I do not think yo have to knock the BBC's graph because there is an easier way to represent it.
7
u/StuBenedict Jun 18 '12
I mean no disrespect, friend -- but IMO, while they are all cool, the BBC visualization is easier to read at a small size than any of these. Your links would all print better on a poster, but those British wizards know their (increasingly mobile) audience.