TWO MORE PAGES with graphics from Michael. Some comments from Ed…then it’s your turn to let us know what you think!
1. I’m wondering if the information in the graphics needs to be presented graphically at all. As in…was this just done from practice? Because you had extra time on your hands? To fill space? Seems to me sports fans don’t really need all of this. So…what was the reasoining behind it all?
2. Why the black and the light blue bars? They don’t seem to correspond to team colors. Is there a reason why you chose those colors in particular? Would some other colors have been more appropriate?
3. In the 3-point shot graphic for UNC-Asheville, you “MAKE” and “MAKE.” There’s no “MISS.” Ooops!
4. Excessive space between the lead photo and its caption.
1. OK, I admit it…I’m gettin’ tired of seeing that same ol’ bear.
2. GSATS acronym drove me nuts. I finally had to read into the story to find out what it stood for.
3. The package seems disjointed—probably because there’s no order to the layout of the photos. A block of four at the top, some down the right side and then three across the bottom? I find that tough to follow.
4. I’d have ditched the photos and done a map, to give the entire package better perspective. Yes, this might have taken longer, but I think this could have waited another week if that’s what it meant.
5. Dunno if this is so, but I want the red in the pie chart to be the most important piece of information. That’s because the red is where readers’ eyes go first.
So…that’s Ed’s contribution. What are your thoughts? If you wanna be part of this, then you gotta be part of it!