<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: WON! The Guardian&#8217;s Visualisation Contest</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/i-won-the-guardians-data-visualisation-contest/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/i-won-the-guardians-data-visualisation-contest/</link>
	<description>Ideas, issues, knowledge, data - visualized!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:12:29 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: david</title>
		<link>http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/i-won-the-guardians-data-visualisation-contest/comment-page-1/#comment-539</link>
		<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:34:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=76#comment-539</guid>
		<description>@darran I edited the image, based on visitor comments, correcting the error. That&#039;s why Quantas is no longer showing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@darran I edited the image, based on visitor comments, correcting the error. That&#8217;s why Quantas is no longer showing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom in Raleigh</title>
		<link>http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/i-won-the-guardians-data-visualisation-contest/comment-page-1/#comment-368</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom in Raleigh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:41:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=76#comment-368</guid>
		<description>The denominator would be passenger-mile. This would also reflect the much higher volumes of pax air travel in the United States compared to any other country in the world. Bottom line is that the U.S. is the safest for air transport on that basis, with Europe not far behind. Asia and Latin America are far riskier.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The denominator would be passenger-mile. This would also reflect the much higher volumes of pax air travel in the United States compared to any other country in the world. Bottom line is that the U.S. is the safest for air transport on that basis, with Europe not far behind. Asia and Latin America are far riskier.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darran</title>
		<link>http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/i-won-the-guardians-data-visualisation-contest/comment-page-1/#comment-330</link>
		<dc:creator>Darran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:24:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=76#comment-330</guid>
		<description>@saddened, where does the graphic show that Qantas had 11 fatal flights?  I don&#039;t see it (which probably says a lot about my ability to extract info from such graphics).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@saddened, where does the graphic show that Qantas had 11 fatal flights?  I don&#8217;t see it (which probably says a lot about my ability to extract info from such graphics).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/i-won-the-guardians-data-visualisation-contest/comment-page-1/#comment-187</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:18:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=76#comment-187</guid>
		<description>I wonder how that first chart should be interpreted. Given the title alone, the US and Britain would appear to be most risky, but it is visualizing absolute numbers of accidents rather than an accident rate. Perhaps it would be useful to include a denominator (number of flights or another appropriate metric).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder how that first chart should be interpreted. Given the title alone, the US and Britain would appear to be most risky, but it is visualizing absolute numbers of accidents rather than an accident rate. Perhaps it would be useful to include a denominator (number of flights or another appropriate metric).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Saddened</title>
		<link>http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/i-won-the-guardians-data-visualisation-contest/comment-page-1/#comment-176</link>
		<dc:creator>Saddened</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 06:27:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=76#comment-176</guid>
		<description>There are factual errors in these charts. Qantas has not had &quot;11 fatal accidents&quot;, in fact Qantas has a near-perfect safety record. The wikipedia info you reference in that chart in fact refers to -incidents- only, not necessarily fatalities or crashes. In fact, if you click on the flight number of the last two Qantas incidents on the list, you&#039;ll see they were serious incidents, but not crashes, and niether involved fatalities. Your charts are very pretty and informative, but I&#039;ll be taking them with a grain of salt from now on as this clearly indicates you accept charts on wikipedia at face value, and fail to do even the most cursory of fact checking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are factual errors in these charts. Qantas has not had &#8220;11 fatal accidents&#8221;, in fact Qantas has a near-perfect safety record. The wikipedia info you reference in that chart in fact refers to -incidents- only, not necessarily fatalities or crashes. In fact, if you click on the flight number of the last two Qantas incidents on the list, you&#8217;ll see they were serious incidents, but not crashes, and niether involved fatalities. Your charts are very pretty and informative, but I&#8217;ll be taking them with a grain of salt from now on as this clearly indicates you accept charts on wikipedia at face value, and fail to do even the most cursory of fact checking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: david</title>
		<link>http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/i-won-the-guardians-data-visualisation-contest/comment-page-1/#comment-65</link>
		<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:15:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=76#comment-65</guid>
		<description>Yes, it&#039;s Illustrator. Amazing program.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, it&#8217;s Illustrator. Amazing program.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Connor</title>
		<link>http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/i-won-the-guardians-data-visualisation-contest/comment-page-1/#comment-63</link>
		<dc:creator>John Connor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:36:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=76#comment-63</guid>
		<description>Is this a Adobe Illustrator work? or what Progamm did you used for this diagramm
I m very interested in data visualisation but i only know Illustrator for this work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is this a Adobe Illustrator work? or what Progamm did you used for this diagramm<br />
I m very interested in data visualisation but i only know Illustrator for this work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
