missing executive summary. a decision maker on the council would skim something like this and missing this makes it harder to comprehend. instead of mystery people want to know the high level recommendations then go into details about why.
the voice of the writing changes between addressing decision makers and techincal description eg ""This should allow users to individually assess each plot and decide whether the plot should be built upon or not.""
the pins don't show which side of the street they are on, so it is hard to tell which plot of land they actually refer to
The habor case study shows how confusing that can be. It's easy to read the 20,000 sq ft as a lot and perhaps the whole area in the picture. Does the city own all that land in several plots? or just one little lot there? That kind of confusion can lead a decision maker to reject your analysis / lose confidence.
It isn't described how units relates to # of people. Decision makers need at least a range of how many people or familiies of some size might be housed. Otherwise it is unclear how to use the # of units numbers.
You didn't address the technical issues in your analysis that I brought up in the presentation. Affordable housing isn't about median income it is about what is the distribution of incomes below the median. You could have somewhat address this with the IRS brackets and doing the analysis by bracket.
I don't understand what the outcome is of not building on the land. The artifact doesn't call this out / present it clearly.
From Benji
artifact is very clean! plots comparing zipcodes (with dozens of lines) is very hard, if not impossible to interpret. labeling lines of interst and providing the entire city as a baseline may have improved the expressiveness of that visualization.
it's not explicitly stated what people should take away from this. so we can build a lot of homes and it'll cost that much money. is that feasible? comparing to what Seattle (or other cities) have done in the past would be helpful. people need relative comparisons, so relative to the budget for HALA or number of affordable houses build in past 3 years or something would help people conceptualize this.
other things:
process of data collection, cleaning, and method of analysis not explicitly stated.
technical description:
target audience not explicitly stated. city council members? residents?
From Greg:
missing executive summary. a decision maker on the council would skim something like this and missing this makes it harder to comprehend. instead of mystery people want to know the high level recommendations then go into details about why.
the voice of the writing changes between addressing decision makers and techincal description eg ""This should allow users to individually assess each plot and decide whether the plot should be built upon or not.""
the pins don't show which side of the street they are on, so it is hard to tell which plot of land they actually refer to
The habor case study shows how confusing that can be. It's easy to read the 20,000 sq ft as a lot and perhaps the whole area in the picture. Does the city own all that land in several plots? or just one little lot there? That kind of confusion can lead a decision maker to reject your analysis / lose confidence.
It isn't described how units relates to # of people. Decision makers need at least a range of how many people or familiies of some size might be housed. Otherwise it is unclear how to use the # of units numbers.
You didn't address the technical issues in your analysis that I brought up in the presentation. Affordable housing isn't about median income it is about what is the distribution of incomes below the median. You could have somewhat address this with the IRS brackets and doing the analysis by bracket.
I don't understand what the outcome is of not building on the land. The artifact doesn't call this out / present it clearly.
From Benji
artifact is very clean! plots comparing zipcodes (with dozens of lines) is very hard, if not impossible to interpret. labeling lines of interst and providing the entire city as a baseline may have improved the expressiveness of that visualization. it's not explicitly stated what people should take away from this. so we can build a lot of homes and it'll cost that much money. is that feasible? comparing to what Seattle (or other cities) have done in the past would be helpful. people need relative comparisons, so relative to the budget for HALA or number of affordable houses build in past 3 years or something would help people conceptualize this.
other things:
technical description: