Add link to SEIRD?

Some description or commentary on these would be useful - what do they do, how, does it work, do they use a common set of pictograms, etc.

Great - "efficiency" or "effectiveness"? Check for typos - "Inforgraphic".

Re. efficiency or effectiveness - either tbh...

"were used"

"more" is comparative. More than what?

I don't understand this one at all - what is it showing, which are the pictograms ... um ... er ....?

Easy to create. Easy to convey? But are they easy to design well, easy to misinterpret? Do you have real evidence of success - this could be beefed up!

Added some commentary this, however, the DissVis team has not evaluated their efficiency in this context, as the audience is the public and that would require an assessment. Maybe this is something that can be evaluated down the line?

Sure - that's fine - reflection (expectations against realization) is our way to try to make sense of this. What worked _in our view_.

We have not put these to the test. So cannot comment on whether their 'work'. However... my fear was always how we can use them to represent data (rather than tell a story)... how do I get a set of icons to map to say some underlying data - does that make sense?

It would be useful to be clear about what expressivity is and how it relates to the task in hand. If misinterpretation is a risk then pictograms seem risky for broad (rather than narrow, within group who knows the language) communication - because you don't know or control "experience, cultural background and age". Can you discuss this - If it's an issue, what are the implications, what did you do?

As we did not evaluate their effectiveness (like in some of the included references) it is very hard to claim anything useful at this point. If anything, when we have shown these outputs to the RAMVIS group, I am sure that their interpretation was not the same from everyone. Do I have evidence for this - no, just a gut feeling.

This is OK _ our informed 'feelings' or thoughts on how things panned out are valuable ... that is what I am trying to capture really!

It would be useful to be explicit about the intended message here. Why do we need the pictogram? Does this go ion a map for example?

OK - useful - do these sets of pictograms exist? Did we look for them and if we found alternatives why were they inadequate?

Delete!

Inforgraphic - surely it's infographic? I could be wrong, but please check!

Also - pedantic - but their effectiveness (and efficiency) could be evaluated, but we didn't do it and have no evidence that they worked. So perhaps best to say this: "We have no information on the effectiveness of these examples".

Not pedantic, I agree - and changed the infographic miss-spell