Classified and confidential data has been replaced and/or omitted in compliance with a signed confidentiality agreement.
The key story was about changes in held territory by various parties, over time.
Following about a week of sketching and seeking critique from other designers in the center, I requested another meeting with the team. The designs were working on a technical level, but I didn't feel they worked to fully reveal the story.
I worked with the analysts and my team to more fully uncover what needed to be illustrated. In the end, we decided it was essential to see the loss of territory from one party to another. Animating the exchange of held land could have the capability to drive home the outcome of months of analysis.
I made the decision to have a map that showed the country floating in whitespace. The narrative wasn't about how the country interacted with its neighbors or outside groups, it was a wholly domestic storyline. I wanted the map to visually read as an island and to drive home that focus.
This story was also a temporal one. The primary form of interaction would be through a timeline, with a tertiary menu that allowed the toggling of views for the various involved parties.
Once the final layout and interface and design was settled upon, my partners and I began the development process. Partly through development, at a progress meeting with the client, an off the cuff comment off “why don't we combine the View menu and the map's legend,” appeared. One of my teammates immediately agreed this was definitely achievable, before looking at me for my approval. Not instantly knowing how something would be created doesn't usually deter me.
So, I also agreed and spent the afternoon working on a solution. Interactive map legends aren't often used. Map legends have to remain consistent to be useful at all. A menu to allow the control of views, on the other hand, had to change when selections are made to convey place within the interaction. The solution shown allowed for minimal, but noticeable highlighting while minimizing its effect on the labeling of the map.
The year to year interaction of the timeline excelled at showing trends and progression. Whereas the comparison view really helped illuminate flareups, areas of concern, and where the majority of activity appeared within a year.
The comparison state would be to compare territory exchange between any two adjacent years. The user could click the ven diagram icon between two years and immediately observe where the changes took place.
The user could either play or scrub through the timeline to illustrate the transfer of territory control.
There was more than once where it was clear that the -decision maker- wasn't fully grasping my assessment. I would pull out the interactive, and you could see it instantly register.
This feedback was quite touching to me. I fully believe in the ability of the interactive products we produce to act as conduits for understanding complex intelligence stories.
Generally, our products are entirely anonymous. We produce our work in short time frames with little recognition outside of our group. Which made the amount of praise and feedback for this product even more surprising.
My team has garnered vocal recognition throughout the briefing process and has received awards for our work on this project.