You must log in or register to comment.

curiouswastaken t1_j87unn5 wrote

Why not have a larger color gradient?

If an area is 0-19% forest, it's probably not green.


Envenger t1_j87vo8x wrote

Bad colour gradient, use atleast white to green.


harambe4life69 t1_j87zroe wrote

Not beautiful when this is how the data is presented :’(


kiki184 t1_j883799 wrote

"%age" - I was looking for the forest "age" by colour legend for a few seconds there.

% is enough, no age needed in title.


aayushch t1_j883fjk wrote

Everything about this is so frustrating. The title is so misleading and this is the worst possible way you could use colors.


art-in-data t1_j8845bo wrote

Like everyone said, the colors can indicate false information. No country is that green in all states. Could you retry this with a wider color range where only places with forest cover are green and places without trees is marked yellow/red/orange or some contrasting color? Next, could you elaborate a little on why age of area is something we should know about?


art-in-data t1_j8848na wrote

Guys let's not be so rude in the comment section. You all are right, but could we tone it down a notch when it comes to critical feedback?


RenningerJP t1_j884g1e wrote

This is terrible to try and read due to the colors chosen


YaSpicyDogs7 t1_j884n32 wrote

I looked at this and thought: Oh yeah, that’s South America


nanoanonnano t1_j884v90 wrote

You could use a color gradient that starts from yellow or a yellowish tint to dark green to make the map more intuitive.


nuevallorker t1_j887rrw wrote

I think this is the harshest comment section ive seen for something so inconsequential. I'm gonna re-read all the comments now in Greta Thunbergs voice for a good laugh.


CarneDelGato t1_j88cwn7 wrote

%age is “percentage?” You could just write % and it would be fine.


Ishmaeal t1_j88g3zs wrote

I’m just popping in to confess that “%age” made me viscerally and anomalistically angry


VelcroSea t1_j88h29x wrote

Data unclear what you are measuring

Land to % covered by trees? How is Forrest defined?

This display does not lead to answering or generating questions to a problem. My questions are all about what us being measured.

Some suggestions. Color has been covered. Yellow to green would make the graphics pop.

Be precise in your labels and add notes as needed. Take time to figure out what the data is communicating

I have data that has to give both the count of the widget and the percent per day of hiw many times the minimum widget count was met per day. Took me a long time to figure out how to label clearly.


Inutilisable t1_j88ilkx wrote

Me too. My brain got stuck on it for way to long. I saw “forest cover” and the green shades, and everything was clear until half a second later I see “%age”. It took me at least a minute to recover what I immediately understood before. I think everyone got irritated by that, the comment section is hilariously angry.


JulianMarcello t1_j88j9or wrote

As someone who works in finance, I couldn’t agree with you more on this. This is way beyond stupid and causes confusion. I was looking at a way to interpret this as the age of forests.


wanmoar t1_j88jumb wrote

You’re missing the point.

When the range starts at 0%, it’s misleading/disingenuous to have that range represented with any shade of green. Maybe a pale yellow or something similar is more apt.


croupella-de-Vil t1_j88k48x wrote

Nothing about the execution of the presentation of this data is “beautiful”


cjrmartin t1_j88k66s wrote

Wow, people in the comments really didn't like the concept of "the darker the green, the more trees".


Atom-the-conqueror t1_j88mm7u wrote

Either type % or the word percentage, you don’t need this weird mix ha


wanmoar t1_j88o7tk wrote

Nationalism usually mean trying to paper over the bad things.

Here, for me, the desire to show India as ‘green’ (with green meaning good), was the reason (knowingly or by instinct) for the choice of colour gradient.


uuuseful t1_j88ppp2 wrote

*Percent covered by forests in Indian states.


cjrmartin t1_j88s337 wrote

Calling it misleading is a little strong. You would prefer it to be brown, I would personally prefer a more pale green, but the amount of hate in the comments is crazy.

The darker the green, the more forests. Seems to make sense to me.


goateygoatface t1_j88xprq wrote

Not in the Northwest, where the Thar desert is located, or much of the country’s northern border regions where the Himalayas are.

I guess I don’t consider data that beautiful when Google Maps’ Satellite view tells a much more precise and interesting picture


sqara82 t1_j88zump wrote

What's the definition of "forests"?


cjrmartin t1_j897vi6 wrote

Ever heard of grass? Nothing wrong with using light green as the base colour that gets darker with higher percentage of forests.

Too many people criticising a perfectly legitimate choice of gradient and shouting hyperboles. Let's be honest, the use of colour is not "ridiculous" even if it's not the most optimal design.


cjrmartin t1_j898shj wrote

What is misleading about the title? Just the use of "%age"? Because, while I agree with those pointing out that it is not necessary, it is also fairly common. What else was so misleading about the title?

The colours are really not that egregious: quite clearly it is showing that the darker the green, the higher the percentage of trees. Really not "the worst possible way to use colour" but I guess people on the internet love to be outraged.


cjrmartin t1_j89artt wrote

Good job the Sahara isn't an Indian state then...

I doubt you would use the same 20% buckets if you were doing a more global map, doesn't make the colour choice as inherently bad as people are suggesting in the comments.

There is a difference between constructive criticism / feedback and saying "this is the worst possible thing you could do"


wjrohde t1_j89dfdd wrote

Are the darker areas all associated with higher elevation?


Gatorinnc t1_j89k4n0 wrote

Sorry, poor choice of colors. Stark, but graded (roygbiv or vibgyor) would have worked


Ruinam_Death t1_j89xut5 wrote

Okay then lets engage:

>Because the colors are just an abstraction. They don't mean that the state is literally that color.

Do you mean that an abstraction has informative value or not?Do you think the color can improve / reduce the user experience?

>Having disjointed colors for a continuous gradation makes no sense

Brown to green is not disjointed. It is representative. It shows bad to good and makes the map readable without the need to compare the color for each area you are looking at.

But the more interesting part now is, which of your opinions do you have? Does the color have information? Or does it not. Because in this point, your comments (seem to) disagree with each other. That is why I asked.


cjrmartin t1_j8b82kp wrote

You're still wrong, it's neither ridiculous nor totally misleading even if it is sub-optimal in the shades of green used. The data is showing forests not general vegetation cover, I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a light green tone for the 0-20% bucket.

Also, happy cake day.


RunAwayWithCRJ t1_j8br46e wrote

Actually this is the correct usage of 'percentage'.

You're supposed to say 'percentage' when you're using it without a numerical value. It's hard to explain, I'll give an example:

>Question: What is the percentage of alcohol in Jack Daniel's?

>Answer: 40 percent


PenileSatan t1_j8cbnye wrote

But India has a lot of forest. Its one of countries with most forest.
Its a misconception that India is all urbanized because of the population size.
India is also one of the countries with biodiversity.


aayushch t1_j8dff9z wrote

I still stand by my comment, that it is indeed frustrating and misleading and not a very good use of colours. However, I acknowledge that you did spend time on gathering this data and then charting it out and it takes effort and time for it, so I really do appreciate your work here. I also admit that I should have left more details so here you go:

  • The “%age” is misleading because it is ambiguous, that is, if you are referring to it as “percentage” or the “age” of the areas. A reader will have to read it multiple times and look at the legend to correlate what you intend to depict. Hence misleading and frustrating. A chart/visualisation loses value if it’s not intuitive. Drop the “age”
  • The use of colours is incorrect for two reasons. First it uses the same gradient all over. This is going to be an accessibility issue. Think about people who have colour blindness. They won’t be able to read your visualisation. There are tools online which help you see image/colours in different types of colour blindness modes. Use them to make your visualisation more accessible. Second, the choice of colour green as a context for areas which do not have any forests in them is misleading. Use of different shades of colours can depict “presence” or “absence” of data points on your visualisation and may help to make the legend self explanatory which enhances your chart.

I hope this helps.


cjrmartin t1_j8ewead wrote

I disagree with you (especially on the colour point), but at least you took the time to make your points constructive. Too many people were just saying "you did the worst job possible" and that is not a helpful way to give feedback.


aayushch t1_j8grrjp wrote

Sure, you can choose to disagree, however, I work with UIs and I am pretty sure that everywhere in the industry this colour gradient will be flagged for accessibility issues.


cjrmartin t1_j8hi5ht wrote

I'm not sure you are correct. I work with GIS (academic not commercial or accessibility related to be fair) but normally the issue with green and shades of green is when it's in contrast with a red or orange shade. That's when colour blind issues come into play.

If this were purely greyscale, you would be able to see each tone fine (although could be tweaked to increase contrast eg lighter green to start and bigger steps) which is the quick test for colourblind problems.