In analyzing the image using the PAT or TAP model I first looked at the image as a whole. The first thing that caught my eye was color. After reading in Malamed about grouping and color I thought the image could have been more effective is there was a consistent color for the outfits. For example, the peoples' outfits on the 20% side would be in one color and the peoples' outfits on the 80% side would be a different color. The next thing that stuck out to me was that the percentages did not match up to the number of people. The 80% had eight bills and the 20% had two bills, but the people were opposite, which confused me. I understand when reading the statement, "80% of sales are made by 20% of salesmen," that a small number of employees do the majority of the sales/work, but when looking at it visually it confused me.
After analyzing the image I decided to re-create another image. I decided to focus on size and color mostly. I matched the 80% to the size of box and size in font. I did the same for 20% (or at least tried to)! I also decided to match the eight bills to match the 80% of sales that were made (money with money) and matched the 20% of salesmen with two people (people with people). By grouping the 'likes' I hope to have created a different approach and view to the 80/20 rule. Below is my version!
Kendra, this make sense. My only question pertains to scale and size. Did you consider making the box with 80% substantially bigger than the box with 20% to indicate the difference in size? If not, did you consider making the two boxes the same size? As they are depicted here, the sizing seems arbitrary rather than intentional. Also, was there a reason behind your choice of font size?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback Dr. Wilcox! Yes, I was trying to emphasize the 80% by making the box larger than the 20%, however, had some issues. It didn't end up as large as I originally thought. I also think I was trying to do the same with the font. I will try again with these suggestions and re-post. Thank you!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete