Stephen Few has introduced “bricks” as a possibly clearer method for geospatial analysis. I think the 9-block version is an excellent idea. Here are my thoughts.
- One could say that the area of the shapes can’t easily be compared. I don’t think a bar-chart-style comparison even applies here. I can’t ask my preattentive mind, but I felt that I instantly understood the relative size of the 9-square bricks without any regard to arrangement.
- Given my sense of how I perceived the 9-square bricks, the profiles of each shape could be made more distinctive, especially those in sequence. There’s no need for one side to remain flat. Similarly, why should 3 be a linear extension of 2?
- I don’t see any problem with color shading, or any need for interior lines in the 9-square brick, and less so with more distinctive shapes.
- I don’t think overlapping bricks are an issue either. And I’m quite sure it’s not a problem if the bricks are semi-transparent. Semi-transparent bubbles are easy to distinguish when overlapped, and so would semi-transparent bricks. Distinguishing shapes would be easier if the outline of each brick was intensified.
So, I’m suggesting that this makes the most sense as a shaded, semi-transparent, darkened-outline collection of 9 distinctive brick shapes.
I was distracted by the 81-square version. I found a fire truck, a capitol building, a hotel and and tugboat in seconds. The subconscious shape association added a real challenge to comparing the sizes.

