Steph can you see this?

I'm going to add comments here (although it is clumsy). - Add some citations to your introductory paragraph

Likewise cite sources for visualisation design for communicating healthcare data etc

Define "communicative data visualisation"

Thanks Steph. I added a definition and citations to the Intro (likely a few more to be added)

As just discussed, you can combine the "Background" and "Literature Review" sections. Start with the overview. Then have a sub-section for each of the two kinds of existing research (methods and user studies). Use further sub-sections in each. Discuss limitations / gaps.

And in your project planning document, refer to your lens and be clear how the project would entail novel research about visual communication for public audiences.

Hi Beth, Apologies in advance - these comments may be slightly randomly ordered - they also ended up quite long. Happy to talk through them. First off, I think that it's looking much more coherent. It's clear that you've put in considerable work and are doing some good organising of materials and approaches. I really like the section you've added on museum audiences (under 'Opportunities). I actually think there's a lot of mileage here - not least because it helps you to narrow down what is otherwise a slightly too encompassing topic (communicative data visualisations). I know that museums is not your only interest and you also remain interested in government communication with the wider public (as also discussed in Opportunities). But I wonder if there's a way to think about what these types of communication share a bit more explicitly and earlier. Is there something perhaps about audiences who are browsing information, as opposed to seeking it out? Or where the information is entertaining (part of a cultural experience) vs necessary. As I'm writing I'm wondering if maybe it would be more productive to think about contrasting the two - museums vs government/other. Or even to create an initial typology (e.g. 2x2 or more complex) to potentially encompass some of the most relevant differences in the motivations and logics of what in the earlier parts you think of as 'general' audiences. You could even think about riffing on your title here (engaging vs informing). Like I say, this is slightly stream of consciousness thinking, but I think the challenge you have is how to somewhat narrow your lens (and this document) in a way that allows the reader to follow your logic a little bit more - and as we discussed it's about putting you (and your interests) more centre stage within what you're talking about as you go through. Specific bits. 1) Thinking about ways to identify relevant literature (as summarised in the intro). One of the most effective that you don't seem to have included is to start with a relevant article (one you think is important) and identify others who have cited that. 2) Re 'Consequently, this may exclude individuals and communities from engaging with and/or extracting information from a visualisation, and prevent creators from optimising their work for all possible audience members, resulting in output reaching an undefined public.' I wonder whether it really is that visualisations have to reach all possible audiences (after all there are very few contexts in which the audience is that expansive), rather there may be a) audiences that are under- or un-studied, as well as b) contexts in which audiences will be diverse in the sense of difficult to specify. The remedies for a and b may be different. 3) Again, maybe think about specifying what you're saying here: 'Visualisation insights for audiences who lack expertise' - they may have/lack expertise in data/visualisation or the particular field to which the data speaks. Lacking either of these expertises would change their ability to interpret, but differently. You do separate these in the para below. One of the reasons to raise this is that the placement may well involve data production for subject (but not datavis) experts. 4) Make sure you reference any declarative statement. e.g. 'Documented cases of misleading data visualisations underscore the need for practitioners, publishers, and audiences to exercise discernment at every stage of communicative information design and production.' 5) The details on the various studies and their approaches in the methods is carefully done. This might feel more focused if you had a specific perspective from which to view these - which goes back to my initial comments at the top here. To what extent do these studies address the types of communication you are interested in? 7) Make sure you put in quotes any parts of the project that are direct quotes from the project prospectus provided by the NHM. This makes it easier to see what you've been asked to do and how you're reflecting on this, commenting or relating your interests to it.