Originally Posted By: buster
What's wrong with it? Just curious. Infineum has their little GF-5 thing going on. Similar layout.
A bar graph would simply show where things stay the same or have been augmented/improved. You've got all these tangents that do little beyond connecting dots.
You've also got 5 tiers ..which one would assume that each represents each GF evolution ..while GF4 protrudes into GF5 .and GF5 idles in GF4 (assuming that the divisions mean anything at all).
Inverting the would look just as strange to me. If simple rays were used with circle for divisions it would seem more sensible. Skip the connecting lines ..skip the web. The creator must have had a childhood romance with "connect the dots" in some radial persuasion.
Again, it's a Gestalt thing. My visual perception features/defects/lacking/peculiarity.
You don't have a problem integrating the depiction ..and I don't either ..after a fashion, but I wonder what inspired it. It would have never entered my head to do it this way.
If you were responsible for creating a visual aid to depict the GF evolutions ..with no prior influence/direction infused into the mix, would you have chosen this manner to do it?
In short, it's alien to 99.44% of the ways I've ever seen progress or differences graphically shown.
That's all
Edit: This has similarities to ..hmm..something like M1 0w-40 to me. I see the stuff shearing routinely ..I butt into the conversation where all the marvels of it are being discussed ..and I poke my head in and say "Hey .ahh..guys ..why is shearing a good thing here ..while every other oil it's a defect" ..and the group pauses for a moment ..I get a look of "what's he talking about?
" and a reply of "Oh that ..it's nothing of importance" ..and am summarily dismissed as the conversation returns to its previously interrupted point.
