We can learn from bad visualization examples by correcting them. This example is from the newly released SANS “Top Cyber Security Risks” report. Their first graphic has a simple message, but due to various misleading visual cues, it’s confusing. A simplified graphic works much better, but they probably don’t need a graphic at all — a bulleted list works just as well. Moral of this story: don’t simply hand your graphics to a designer with the instructions to “make this pretty”. Yes, the resulting graphic may be pretty, but it may lose its essential meaning or it might just be more confusing than enlightening. Someone has to take responsibility for picking the right visualization metaphor and structures.
Filed under: presentation by Russell on Friday, September 18, 2009
3 Comments »
An “InfoSec risk scorecard” attempts to include all the factors that drive information security risk – threats, vulnerabilities, controls, mitigations, assets, etc. But for the sake of simplicity, InfoSec risk scorecards don’t include any probabilistic models, causal models, or the like. It can only roughly approximate it under simplifying assumptions. This leaves the designer open to all sorts of problems. Here are 12 tips that can help you navigate these difficulty. It’s harder than it looks.
Filed under: Data Analysis, presentation by Russell on Monday, September 14, 2009
2 Comments »
Andrew Koppelman has a post on lawprof blog Balkinization, titled “You have no idea:” This data sits uneasily beside a recent study in the American Journal of Medicine of personal bankruptcies in the United States. In 2007, 62% of all personal bankruptcies were driven by medical costs. “Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately [...]
Filed under: presentation by adam on Sunday, September 6, 2009
No Comments »