It is an unusual week for me because I am in an interview process for a job. I wanted to check how much it would take from my study time.
I continue to explore learning with ASD by including the place. One of the characteristics is the need to control the environment (or having a very stable, familiar environment), and relative inflexibility. I am used to studying in two main places: at my desk, or in the park. Together with that, I tracked how productive I felt the time used was to include another self-awareness, subjective tracking element like last week.
The design and methodology.
Following up on last week, I updated the design according to these considerations:
Last week I agonised over having coherent colour palettes, which is why I chose similar gradient shades. However, this created a problem that I also spotted in McCandless (2012, below): the scale that looks beautiful with its gradient shades, doesn’t end up looking as harmonious when the data is collated. Therefore I opted for colours that all work together.
I wanted to experiment with less rigid drawings. Both many of my classmates and Dear Data (Lupi&Posavec 2016) tend to be less concerned with filling squares and lines perfectly. This is not the case for me, as any major imprecisions are a trigger. However, I wanted to experiment with letting the rigidity go a bit, and opted for free brush strokes.
Using mixed techniques (stamp, tape, metallic and watercolour pens). Although the data is still on paper, I felt like experimenting with textures could add another dimension. The tape added neatness.
This time I took notes first, and then decided on the presentation.
I can’t see any correlations between productivity and place.
The intervew task did indeed consume a lot of time.
The brush strokes extending to the right seem now like a wasted opportunity to add another scale (horizontal axis for data).
Lupi, G. Posavec, S. (2016) Dear Data. Princeton Architectural Press
McCandless, D. (2012) Information is Beautiful. HarperCollins Publishers