This New York Times data visualization on the different ways people in Syria are dying is great in that it helps make sense of a conflict that is obscure in the minds of many Americans. While I liked the use of dots to represent the number of Syria’s dead, I can’t help but wonder if there was a way to make the data even more relatable. For example, it would have been helpful to include a side-by-side comparison to deaths from another conflict or major incident.
That being said, I did like the simplicity and clarity of this piece. The maps and graphs are useful in that they reflect trends, which I think is a very important part of tracking data in general but is particularly helpful in conflict zones (especially if one is looking for a solution to the conflict). Also, the written text is an effective method of putting the figures in context. While the visualization reflects the gravity of the situation in Syria and just how many people have been killed, the numbers mean nothing (or very little) without context.
When it comes to the content itself, I think a couple of things could have been done better. Because the number of Syria’s dead (and the cause of their death) is a highly contested topic, I think the Times should have been more transparent and explained to its audience what sources it relied on and why it chose them. I am intimately familiar with the Syrian conflict, so I recognize the sources as being trustworthy, but the broader American public likely does not. I also would have liked to have seen a breakdown of deaths by perpetrator (this is a good example of that).