This orientation and numbering is much easier to follow, but a few
things still stand out for me:
1. Using timelines implies that the dates are laid out to some sort of
scale, but they aren't. For example, the distance between 1642 and
1646 (4 years) is about the same distance as between 1646 and 2059
(419 years). So, it looks like the placement of dates on the timelines
is driven by the text layout of the associated descriptions. Instead,
I think you need to first lay out the dates on the timeline in a way
that makes sense without the descriptions (which doesn't have to be
exactly to scale), then find a way to add the text descriptions within
that framework.
2. That the alternate timeline is at an angle suggests that time is
progressing at a different rates on the two lines, but it seems that's
not the case, since 1627 lines up vertically. Either it needs to be
clearer that time is progressing at different rates, or just use
parallel lines.
3. It seems the dotted line for the "targeted return" should drop down
to the original timeline.
Regards, Adam
On Feb 2, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Tom DellAringa wrote:
Took a lot of your comments into account, as well as some of my own
thoughts. I tried to vastly simplify things. Here is an update, be
glad to hear any thoughts.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/48702/timeline2.jpg
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
