IBCS Standards 2.0 (draft with tracked changes)

Who, what, when is reasonable. But the context should play a bigger role. When the entire report is e.g. for December-2025, then I don’t need this info on each slide/chart. In addition to KPIs and dimensions that are shown in the chart, the title should also make clear what is not shown, i.e. filtered. A good rule could be: name all dimensions that your chart filters. If not filtered, why should it be mentioned? E.g. a business unit as the “who”: when the entire report is about that business unit, you would not mention it on each chart. But maybe a product group is filtered, then you should explicitly mention the filtered product group. What, who, when is certainly important, but seems a bit arbitrary.

No doubt, there is the need for abbreviations due to space limitations. On the other hand, abbreviations can lead to misunderstanding or time-inefficiency when users first have to look it up in a glossary. Many good companies recommend little usage of abbreviations. Business communication should be as clear as possible. That’s why we should include a recommendation for a limited usage of abbreviations. Also, different types of abbreviations make it even more complex.

The idea that there is a 'better' or 'worse' data-ink ratio is a typical misinterpretation of the concept that was popularized by Edward Tufte as an 'objective' measure of the signal-to-noise ratio encoded by the ink or pixel used to create data visualizations. Based on the formula provided for calculating data-ink ratio, there is a 'higher' or 'lower' data-ink ratio that relates to the density of information (as well as redundancy, which is necessary sometimes), but no literature definitively points to a higher or lower ratio being better or worse when it comes to things like comprehension, legibility, engagement or other functional metrics (and often subjective) metrics used to measure the quality of the visual design. I am currently in the process of writing an article to be published on this subject and would be happy to provide more evidence or comment on this.

Since we are issuing a document in 2025, maybe make sense also to update all the examples

Why if we remove EXTRA in the title we do not remove also from here?

Is style the correct word? Should not maybe be dimensions?

Which are the "Rare case"? And why we are defining it rare?
I do believe that by using modern technologies, can be that the dashboard are interactive and that they can be easily published directly.

Are we sure are only analytical? If we speak about reports without reference to numbers, I would assume that a report can also be a narrative.

I would squeeze the 2 senteces in one unique, such as
"Success", a formula that....

I do believe this sentece here is reduntant

SI 5.2 Avoid Long numbers

this section should has information on number scaling should be defined when we are shortening the number. In this example its defined as 366123 to 366.1 which can interpreted 366.1K or mentioning this info below the chart as "number scaled to 1000"