information aesthetics

But the icons don't make sense unless you read the key. Even then, it's a bit weird (like carbohydrates are represented by a fuel gauge because they are the major source of energy...stretching it a bit, isn't it?)

The dotted line represents one third of our GDA, but surely breakfast, lunch and dinner aren't equal?

And what if the percentage GDA is *over* 100?

I'm sure the masses won't mind. And, yes, it's pretty...

I could've read ten or so Nutrition Facts boxes in the time that it took to watch the intro describing what all of the different buttons and icons mean. :(

Are Italian McDonald's items substantially different from their U.S. counterparts? This site says that a Big Tasty has an incredible 51g of fat, vs. a meager (heh) 23g according to the Nutrition Facts at http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html . The Big Mac is 25g according to .info but 30g according to .com.

A problem with the percent of RDA system in general is that on some things (e.g., most vitamins), you want to err on the side of taking too much, and on some things, (e.g., saturated fats) you want to err on the side of too little.

The graphic just transfers this problem to a bar chart format. Answering the key question, `is this product good for me?', requires checking that some parts of the chart are big bars and some are small bars. E.g., the big yellow bars (saturated fats) indicate unhealthy eating, but then the short green bar by the little leaf (fiber) also indicates unhealthy eating.

They could maybe have indicated the good nutrients/bad nutrients distinction via colors, but the colors seem darn close to arbitrary.

[Yes, I know that the good nutrients/bad nutrients dichotomy is false, and different for every person. E.g., excess protein intake, as from a McDonald's-heavy diet, leads to osteporosis. But without stereotyping, we know a few things about what nutrients the average person is over- and underconsuming.]

You almost have to laugh at this. It's a half-assed attempt to try to visually depict that horriable nutrional fact grid offered at McDonalds locations and on their own site. However, this is all glossed over with vague icons and an interface that takes effort to learn.. plus some new branding to make them look all hip and nutritious. A great example of how you can distort factual information to make it look like it's really not all that bad, just because you show it in a positive light.

Facts are facts, McDonald's may taste good and is very convenient for those of us on the run, but it's anything but healthy and nutrious.

grams would better be positioned on the left, with the percentages 'ragged' right.

excuse me while I finish this 21g of pure pleasure. im lovin' it.

It seems this is becoming a popular trend. Here in the UK Walkers have launched a big campaign to show what the GDA is for salt, unsaturated fats etc. Also, the supermarket chain Sainsbury's have launched something similar for all of their products.

The Sainsbury's nutritional information seems to be aimed more at how good the product is for you. five areas have been identified and these are labled with green, orange or red. A small pie chart is placed on each product. If it's more red than green then treat yourself once in a while. If it's more green than red then it's better for you.

I feel sorry for the colour red sometimes, always being depicted as something evil.

Mc Donalds is the best fast food on God's green earth. I have loved Mc Donalds resturants since I was a child. I am 32 yrs. of age and have nothing but praise for the food as well as the service. Thank you for your good food and good times. Bartlesville OK.

Its very good that we enjoyed very well in mcdonalds, such a nice pastries and icecreames with low calories i loved it lot thank for you to serving good food for all.keep it improving lots and lots.

I don't care what any one says McDonald's food is great and it tastes good. If people don't like it then they don't have to eat it. There is no one twisting their arm to.