Angle is tricky because past a certain angular resolution, it is less immediately (or accurately) grasped by the subconscious, so while they can technically be used for interval and ratio values, they are most useful for small ordinal (i.e. almost categorical) datasets. Coupled with the innate human inability to accurately perceive relative angles, they are not that great even if the viewer does commit to serious conscious processing of the graphic.
So, while I think “medium” is probably an accurate rating for it, it might warrant an asterisk or a footnote…
Peter, yes agreed. We can get at least 12 different quantitative values quite easily (such as on the face of a clock). Beyond that, increments are likely more ordinal than accurate. I’ll update the next version.
Angle is tricky because past a certain angular resolution, it is less immediately (or accurately) grasped by the subconscious, so while they can technically be used for interval and ratio values, they are most useful for small ordinal (i.e. almost categorical) datasets. Coupled with the innate human inability to accurately perceive relative angles, they are not that great even if the viewer does commit to serious conscious processing of the graphic.
So, while I think “medium” is probably an accurate rating for it, it might warrant an asterisk or a footnote…
Comment by Peter Wang — January 27, 2012 @ 8:45 pm
Peter, yes agreed. We can get at least 12 different quantitative values quite easily (such as on the face of a clock). Beyond that, increments are likely more ordinal than accurate. I’ll update the next version.
Comment by Noah — January 28, 2012 @ 10:31 am
… and the new version is posted, both the gif and pdf.
Comment by Noah — January 31, 2012 @ 1:11 pm