Breaking Free of the One-Page Dashboard Rule
By Zach Gemignani
May 4, 2009
Find more about:
dashboard
interface
analytics
design
Conventional wisdom says that an executive dashboard must fit on a single page or screen. The argument hinges on a pair of assertions about this constraint: it provides necessary discipline to focus on only the most critical information; and it enables the audience to see results "at a glance."
The "discipline" argument is made forcefully by Avinash Kaushik (among others).
"if your dashboard does not fit on one page, you have a report, not a dashboard...This rule is important because it encourages rigorous thought to be applied in selecting the golden dashboard metric."
I buy wholeheartedly into the value of constraints. However, defining a useful constraint as a "rule" assumes there is only one viable means to achieve the desired ends. Confining visual real estate is but one way to focus your thinking. There are others: How about limiting yourself to five key measures? How about demanding that a dashboard can be understood in 3 minutes by a new user? How about only presenting exceptions?
The argument that a one-page dashboard necessarily provides an view of your business "at a glance" is more self-deceiving. Well-known information-ista Stephen Few uses this rationale in his definition of a dashboard:
A visual display of the most important information needed to achieve one or more objectives; consolidated and arranged on a single screen so the information can be monitored at a glance. PDF
I check my speedometer "at a glance". I "glance" at a Heads-up Display (HUD) on a video game showing how much energy my character has remaining. These displays communicate but a single number that is already hovering on the corner of my consciousness. If we follow this advice literally, we'd show:
Assuming one page gives you quick, easy comprehension is like assuming all red cars are fast. That's simply not true. It must be duly noted, however, that all red cars are cool.
More often, people follow the one-page dashboard rule off a cliff like these folks.
There are real problems with this definition:
- In reality, the one-page rule leads to jamming information into the available space.
- When everything must fit on a page, there isn't room to describe the connections between information or fashion a story from the data.
- A good dashboard raises more questions than it can answer. Sticking to a static piece of paper limits any ability to find or present explanations.
Don't get me wrong: A one-page dashboard is often an effective way to create "a visual display of the most important information needed to achieve one or more objectives." But with streaming video, interactive visualizations, podcasts, Kindles, smart phones, video projectors...is it really necessary to limit ourselves to 8.5" x 11" piece of paper. Or might we open ourselves up to some more creative solutions to sharing the numbers; a short movie, a few slides, a short text narrative, or 140 characters.
I'd like to use this definition instead and will be back soon with some ideas on how to make your dashboards clear and concise.
Subscribe & Browse
- Visitors Guide Our most popular posts and tools
- Subscribe via RSS or Email
- Browse by Topic, Date or Author
Explore our world
Recent Posts
- Are you using information effectively?
- Predictive Analytics: Interview with Eric Siegel, Ph.D.
- Important Dialogue
- Automated PowerPoint Generation, or Making a "Slide Factory"
- Depth and Discovery: Powering Visualizations with the Google Analytics API
- Juice's Simple Font Framework
- Designing Great Dashboards - Part 3
- Airline and Airport Traffic and Delays: A JuiceKit Visualization Demo
- Designing Great Dashboards - Part 2
- Designing Great Dashboards - The Book
10 comments | Show all comments only the last 5 are shown
Clint said:
Actually, the historical definition of dashboard is
"[an] instrument panel on an automobile or airplane containing dials and controls" (via answers.com). Don't know about you but some of those big airplanes have huge dashboards - no way to take it all in a single glance. So it sounds like you could take dashboard back to it's semantic roots, so to speak, without offering a new definition and still get to your desired outcome.
An improvement on this (which you reference but from the wrong frame) is the Heads-Up Display which shows critical info without the pilot/driver having to take their eyes off what's in front of them - which is much more like the single-page data dashboard than a car dashboard is like a data dashboard.
Back in the days of paper, single page data dashboards made a lot of sense - and to a certain extent still do. I haven't seen any usability studies comparing the two, but we know from web usability that folks generally don't like to scroll a page - how would that be any different in a dashboard? You don't want a user to abandon your dashboard too early in the same way you don't want them to abandon a web page too early and scrolling is a friction point that can cause users to abandon.
Michael Pierce said:
I like the definition...clear and concise itself.
This concept reminds me of debate that goes on with web designers. In this day and age, with newspapers dying off and crazy new devices coming out all of the time, what exactly is "one page" anymore? I can tell you, an 8.5x11 dashboard would be dismal to use on my BlackBerry. With an exceedingly mobile workforce, how should dashboards adapt to the world of BlackBerries? And that would be if you were lucky enough to have your company standards on the BB platform...maybe there are iPhones and others in the mix.
How do you make information clear, concise and *available* to your audience?
Igor said:
Sorry to say, but I dont like your definition as it is now. Compared to the original, it's too vague on "analytical display", "clear" and "concise". Can you improve on that a bit?
Jorge Camoes said:
I would argue that a dashboard should be compliant with Ben Schneiderman's visual information seeking mantra ("Overview first, zoom and filter, then details-on-demand."). "Overview first" would mean "at a glance". Then the users should be able to zoom and filter and get the details if needed. A sheet of paper is not the best medium to accomplish that...
The question is, what level of details is needed to optimize insights "at a glance" and how can you design the dashboard to create a story with those details.
The one page rule is like Miller's magical number 7+/- 2. It may guide your first steps but soon you discover that what matters is the spirit of the rule, not the rule itself.
Zach said:
@Clint: Here's how I consider the scrolling issue different for a dashboard: 1) when I think of larger than one page, I think of logical mechanisms for drilling in or navigating to more detailed views of information -- not just adding more charts down the page; 2) casual perusing of a website and studying a dashboard have very different mindsets. That is, if the information on the dashboard is critical to running your business, you'll be willing to click around a bit.
@Michael: We've done a "dashboard" for a Blackberry. Basically it was a short text file that offered the most critical daily numbers in a layout that was readable for the device. I think you are right on to ask who is the audience?, how do they want to receive their information?, and therefore what is the right form factor for the dashboard?
@Jorge: I agree that spirit of the rule is in the right place, but it isn't something that you need to slavishly follow.
Jose said:
I suggest that "dashboards" as defined by Few is only one of many views necessary to tell a story: it answers the 1) "What" - as in "Status, Trend/Change or Contribution ". we also need 2) support evidence "Who, When and Where" (Details) and Analysis 3) "Why and How".
In general, even with just a few metrics, I find that explaining just "what" is challenging enough in one page. Think of the financial page of a newspaper: it demands a combination of graphs, tabular info and narrative text. So when creating an information display, I try to organize different views according to their purpose - and make them display/print in one page.
The opportunity that computers give us over paper is the ability to link all different views with common filters - so that the user is able to iterate formulating and answering questions in the display (cycling through Schneiderman's information seeking mantra as many times as needed).
Chris Curran said:
Good points Zach, especially the one you make in the comments regarding understanding audience for a dashboard. In my experience, senior business leaders don't have the time or attention span for a desktop-based UI dashboard. So paper and/or blackberry/mobile must be considered, at least for the "overview first" level of information.
More on my blog at http://www.ciodashboard.com/
Stephen Few said:
Zach,
Your definition differs from mine because we seem to be talking about different things entirely. I define a dashboard as an information display that is used to "monitor" what's going on. You are referring to a display that is used for data analysis or telling a story (two very different forms of data presentation which can't be displayed in the same manner).
A display that's used for regularly monitoring what's going on in an effort to maintain situation awareness requires a much different design than one that's used for data analysis or storytelling. When you're monitoring information for situation awareness, you must see the pieces on a single screen or page to make all the necessary connections and comparisons that are needed to build the big picture in your head of what's going on.
If we want to cut through the confusion that exists regarding proper information display, we must be careful to define our terms carefully and declare our purposes clearly. Multiple pages or screens often work well for telling a story, which much be delivered one piece at a time in the proper sequence. Multiple screens can also work well for analysis as your focus changes from the pursuit of one question to another. Multiple screens do not work well when you need to make comparisons and connections, however, because if the things that must be connected aren't in front of your eyes at the same time, you're forced to rely on working memory, which is extremely limited. In other words, the restriction to a single screen in this case is not arbitrary, but based on scientific evidence of what's actually required to do the job.
jeffrey weir said:
I see there's a good thread that covers some of this at http://www.perceptualedge.com/discussion.htm under New Topic Proposals/Nomenclature for visualization, dashboards, analytic tools, etc.
Zach said:
Stephen,
I can appreciate the distinction between a monitoring tool and an analysis tool. However, I don't think that fully explains our difference of perspective. Even in the case of a monitoring application, a bunch of factors need to be simultaneously optimized to ensure it communicates effectively (e.g. readability, layout and structure, connections and comparison, information design). The one-page constraint elevates the importance of comparison above other factors that have significant impact on the overall success of the dashboard. The constraint has real impacts:
* Tiny fonts and graphics to squeeze in all the information
* Inability to lay out the information to reflect the structure of the business (i.e. show connections)
* Inability to position graphics in ways that support comparison
* All the relevant information has to be shown at once, rather than gradually revealing detail as the user expresses interest.
It is as if you told me that the goal of a new car model is to achieve 40 miles per gallon of gas. It is a fine goal, but it entails sacrifices to comfort, fun, and innovation. You'll never end up with an electric car.
said:
Add a comment