| Group | Comments |
| 1 | great overall |
| 2 | not a whole lot of linked brushing |
| 3 | passionate presentation, many observations |
| 4 | plenty of interactons interesting observations |
| 5 | some interactions, well put together |
| 6 | Interesting topic, the map is too small, would have liked to hear about causes |
| 7 | Designed by principles, causation somewhat indrect, but present |
| 8 | Largest focus is on the map which reveals insight, color legend is missing, |
| 9 | Some preprocessing analysis would be helpful to give better insights in this dataset |
| 10 | fully linked, but highlighting selected points in other visualizations would have preserved context |
| 11 | Good background research, liked the insights about external factors that affect performance. |
| 12 | Good background research, the design of the dashboard need some improvements. |
| 13 | OK, by the design and insights can be better. |
| 14 | Good background research, nice design and visualizations |
| 15 | Good storytelling, background and insights |
| 16 | Good design and visualization |
| 17 | Liked the highlight section. Overall good visualization. |
| 18 | The storytelling can be improved. |
| 19 | Good background research and insights |
| 20 | |
| 21 | All charts were not linked but partly linked. Not convincing conclusion. |
| 22 | Good explanation and nice visualization. Nice story telling |
| 23 | Color selection could ve better. |
| 24 | No linking among charts - Cluttered visualization - No concrete analysis |
| 25 | No real data but artificial data so no real conclusion was drawn. Confusing and complicated visualization |
| 26 | Very nice nyc map best I have seen yet |
| 27 | Not all linked visualization. Good conclusion, some missing aspect into conclusion |
| 28 | good data collection, not all visualizations are linked. |
| 29 | Very basic visualization |
| 30 | good data and analysis with nice visualization |
| 31 | The titles need fixing as they only focus on the USA, not the whole world. Also, the PCP doesn't support any brushing, or swaping exis |
| 32 | Overall good Dashboard. The descriptions in the MDS plot overlap. |
| 33 | The maps lack a zoom feature, and the x-axis of the bar chart is hard to understand. |
| 34 | The title keeps blinking,
making it hard to focus on the data. The overall dashboard isn't on one
screen, requiring a lot of scrolling which makes it difficult to track selections. Additionally, the storytelling is poor, and there's lack interactivity. |
| 35 | The title is confusing; the data is about UK death analysis. Otherwise, the storytelling and visualization are good. |
| 36 | The storytelling is excellent, but the design needs improvement. |
| 37 | There's limited interaction, and the radar plot could be improved |
| 38 | The dashboard is good with plenty of interaction |
| 39 | PCP lacks brushing functionality. |
| 40 | The dashboard is good with plenty of interaction. |
| 41 | Aesetically beautiful Dashboard, but the insights reavealed from the Dashboard can be enhanced |
| 42 | Nice Linking between visualizations, can get some interesting insights through the interactions. |
| 43 | Didn't put much effort in it, basic design and no linking between visualizations |
| 44 | The scatter plot matrix tells a lot about emploement situation, can use sequential color scheme for the geomap |
| 45 | Nice implementation of
visualizations, color choosing and labelling can be further improved. Used
two unemployement datasets not directly connected |
| 46 | Interesting topic, nice
choice of correlation heatmap and line chart to represent unemployement rate
in recent years, color scheme for scatter plot and sunburst chart can be improved |
| 47 | Brushing and linking are well implemented in the Dashboard. Choose of Visualiztions make sense |
| 48 | Nice choice of including infographics in the Dashboard. |
| 49 | No brush or linking between visuals. The comparable PCA plots are somewhat informative |
| 50 | Monthly COVID cases and stringency index show the trend very well |
| 51 | The pie chart was disconnected from all other charts in terms of filtering. PCP clusters were unexplained |
| 52 | Line chart was used inappropriately. |
| 55 | Good storytelling. simple design. |
| 57 | |
| 60 | plot connections are not consistent and somewhat confusing. |
| 64 | labels were congested and overlapping. good storytelling. were looking for feedback. good storytelling. |
| 69 | |
| 70 | Worthy of being a star project! |
| 71 | |
| 72 | The pcp was cluttered. |
| 73 | Good interaction, Good design |
| 74 | Good understanding of the data linking and plots, |
| 77 | Lacks a data story, plots not used convincely |
| 80 | Vague storytelling, Interaction not great |
| 83 | Good story, limited plots |
| 85 | Scrolling present |
| 88 | Interesting choice of data, but it is slightly tricky to explain |
| 90 | CS student but used Plotly, forecasting data is nice addition |
| 96 | |
| 99 | Good story |
| 100 | Hard to see full picture. Have to scroll to different elements. No real inights espcially not based on connected charts |
| 101 | |
| 110 | Scroll, no story, no legends, unecessary use of colors in bar chart |
| 111 | |
| 112 | Nice that clustering was implemeted, but inferior use of colors |
| 113 | Not too much linking but nice design, good interaction to dig for insights |
| 115 | |
| 116 | |
| 118 | Very nice |
| 119 | Very nice |
| 120 | Very nice |