1 DATASET 100 VISUALIZATION PART 1 (1st to 10th visual)1 dataset 100 visualizations Can we come up with 100 visualizations from one simple dataset? As an information design agency working with data visualization every day, we challenged ourselves to accomplish this using insightful and visually appealing visualizations. We wanted to show the diversity and complexity of data visualization and how we can tell different stories using limited visual properties and assets. Number of World Heritage Sites Norway Denmark Sweden 2004 5 4 8 2022 8 10 15Simple yet functional For the challenge we chose a very simple dateset — although complex enough for interpretation. The dataset includes multiple statistical aspects such as comparison, development, distribution, etc. The dataset compares the numbers of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Scandinavia in 2004 and 2022. World Heritage Sites 2004 2022 Norway 6 e Denmark a 10 sweden 18 15 pepe unseaome yy From the datasct we deduced the cotal, average. perceptual change and perceptual distribution, which gave more possibilities for approaching the detasct fiom different perspectives. The story could be on the development of toral Scandinavian national heritages or focus could be chat Sweden has significantly more than che rect both then end now. Or the fact that in a few years Denmark surpassed Norway, World Heritage Sites Additional data ‘Absolute ——— —— 20082022 change 20082022, change Nonay ® 8 27% — 2az%® = 6% Denmark 4 10 6 182% 309% 150% swodon 13 6 2 BOI ABE 18a Total 22 2a " 100% 100% + 60% Sou bnsinncinscn Ovi#1 Next > 35 30 . Sweden 25 22 20 5 i) Denmark 10 ma ” Norway 5 ° 2004 2022 A traditional stacked bar chart, Easy to cead and a rather efficient data visualization. The primary focus is the ‘omparison of the total number of World Heritage sites now and then. Secondly, you are able to compare the individual countries. STOR! Scandinaviaas.a whole gained now sites ‘Sweden stayed the country with the most sites ‘Sweden used to have over half ofall sites and now has under half< Previous #2 Next > Denmark ay wo 10 5 15 World Heritage ° Sites 20 A gicar visualization for the purpose of visualizing the progress for each country. By focusing on the progress rather than the total values, we clearly see how Denmark surpasied Norway. The gauge-like layour adds an incerescing alternative visuel approach. STORIES ‘Sweden stayed the country with the most sites: Denmarkgained the most new sites and Swetien the fewest Denmark surpassed Norway in numberof sites< Previous @ x ea 60% Norway a3 ~ 150% Denmark Next > 15% Sweden A lollipop chart, which works gs a clean and efficient visualization for this dataset. The numbers are indicated above each lollipop, and the axis is omitted as ic is noc needed. An advantage for chis visualization is the zbilicy ro compare all numbers across both countries and years STORIES ‘Sweden stayed the country with the most sites: Denmaricgained the most new sites and Swecien the fewest Danmark got most of its sites after 2004 while Sweden and Norway did before#4 Next > < Previous 33 10 22 4 8 5 ce 13 18 2004 2022 @ Denmark @ Norway ™ Sweden A stacked bar chart in isometric 3D style. The primary focus is the comparison of the total number of World Heritage sites. Secondly, you are able ro compare the individual countries. Having a legend for a simple char 5 iv more time consuming to decode ike this might be a bit overkill, os it make STORES ‘Scandinaviaas a whole gained new sites ‘Sweden stayed the country with tha most sites ‘Sweden used to have over half of all sites and now has under halt< Previous #5 Next > Sweden Norway Denmark @ 2004 @ 2022 Clusters of hexagons indicating the absolute oumber of World Heritage sites for each country. As the hexagons are placed in random clusters, che accurate number is not easy co read without counting manuzlly. So the purpose here is not an accurate representation, bur rather an approximate ratio berween the countries and the developments STORIES ‘sweden stayed the country with the most sites Denmark got most of its sites after 2004 while Sweclen and Norway did before< Previous #6 Next > {> Denmark A ip @ Sweden D 2004 2022 Stacked bar chart with rounded corners. A strength of this visualization is the integration of numbers and years. which makes a legend superfluous ‘Sweden stayed the country with the most sites Denmark gained the most new sites and Sweden the fewest Denmark got mast of its sites after 2004 while Sweden and Norway did before< Previous #7 Next > 15 10 s 3 ° a 5 ° o 5 10 5 2022 A scatter plot with integrated country labels. The plot makes it possible co com pare 2022 numbers horizontally and 2004 numbers vertically, which clearly sets Sweden apart from Norway and Denmark both then and now ‘Sweden stayed the country with the most sites< Previous #8 Next > 2004 >) mle) +150% +60% ST Mik 2022 Stacked bar chatis bridged visually, with perceptual change for both individual countries and total perceptual change for Scandinavia STORIES ‘Scandinaviaasa whole gained new sites ‘Swodion stayed the country with the most sites ‘Sweden used to have over half ofall sites and now has undar half< Previous Next > 2004 2022 This data visualization combines a square arca chart for the total Scandinavian progress and stacked bar charts showing the distribucion between the counteies in percentage ‘Scandinaviaasa whole gained new sites ‘Swodion stayed the country with the most sites ‘Sweden used to have over half ofall sites and now has undar half< Previous #10 Next > On 2 one-dimensional diagonal axis, the countries are plotted in as dots. Both years and country names are integrated into the chart. The visuslizacion is focused on progress and highlights bow Danmark has surpassed Norway, while Sweden only had limived progress. STORIES ‘Sweden stayed the country with the most sites: Denmarkgained the most new sites and Swetien the fewest Denmark surpassed Norway in numberof sitesTHANK YOU If you: like this; follow a of wa eA ESL a 1 carousal per day for next 9 days to cover the nares ELS Sle adele l=le Bee