×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

IBCS Standards 2.0 (draft with tracked changes)

Please add your comments until Jan 31, 2026

Use this version of IBCS 2.0 if you want to see the changes compared with IBCS 1.2.

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.

Powered by Konveio

Comments

Cancel

Add comment

Ronald Dec 15 2025 at 10:11AM on page 7

Question

Design or composition? Composition is more consistent in line with document?

Ronald Dec 15 2025 at 9:57AM on page 7

Question

is it only analytical objectives? If I share business information with a proper message, then the analytical part has already been done. A report at that point only reports something, the insight is already been given only a decision has to be made.

Ronald Dec 15 2025 at 9:48AM on page 5

Question

Question: It is early in the document and I do not know if the answer will pop up later. But by removing the conceptual, perceptual and semantic rules, you are also removing all these big names. Which IMHO gave IBCS an extra edge. It is not a stand-alone thought, it is the combined knowledge of different renown people with a special topping added.

Ronald Dec 15 2025 at 9:33AM on page 3

Suggestion

Typo "SUCCESS". instead of "SUCCES."

Ronald Dec 15 2025 at 9:31AM on page 3

Suggestion

delete 'creative'. I believe the principles apply to all compositions, not only creative ones.

Ronald Dec 15 2025 at 9:29AM on page 1

Suggestion

By rewritting a document and changing structure, I would recommend to change the version number. Especially as there is a a time-lapse of 4 years. The document will have a different look and feel, though the content might not be changed.

Proposal is to maken this version 2.1 - an updated version of 2.0

Tobias Guggemos Dec 14 2025 at 5:17PM on page 57

Suggestion

Please consider that it can be seen in many vizzes that are darker shade stands for higher number of the respective KPI. It is therefore intuitive that dark blue, for example, represents higher Sales compared to light blue for low Sales. So, it can be confusing that you refer light color to desirable and dark to less desirable. maybe, it would be more intuitive when a darker shade would stand for higher amount of a number (revenue, cost, etc.).

Tobias Guggemos 2 1 Dec 13 2025 at 8:36AM on page 64

Suggestion

Similar to ranking could be text/ name of the dimension and an icon. The icon for filtering is usually a funnel which is complex and often not directly available in software tools. Easier options could be:
Stacked Lines: This is one of the easiest options. It typically looks like three horizontal lines of varying lengths (often short, medium, long) and/or a small inverted triangle symbol ▼ next to them.
Minimalist Funnel: Instead of a detailed funnel, you can use a simple outline or solid-color triangle with a line across the top, representing the core shape without the complexity. Many modern icon sets offer highly simplified linear versions of the funnel that are much easier to integrate into a title.

Tobias Guggemos 2 Dec 13 2025 at 8:16AM on page 59

Suggestion

For color blind people, the standard is some kind of orange/brown vs blue tone. It’s the default for variances in Tableau Software. Please also consider this for situations with color blind people.

Tobias Guggemos 1 1 Dec 13 2025 at 7:55AM on page 53

Suggestion

You could give reasons here. This is together with too colorful charts the standard which is often not followed by professionals who are not skilled in IBCS. Among others, the labels remain readable on the vertical axis. Often the data labels of column bars are rotated by 90 degrees due to space limitations which makes it unclear and difficult to read. This could be one advantage for your standard here.

Tobias Guggemos 1 Dec 13 2025 at 12:45AM on page 35

Suggestion

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.

Tobias Guggemos Dec 12 2025 at 10:21PM on page 30

Suggestion

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.

Michael Lai Dec 5 2025 at 1:24AM on page 111

Suggestion

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.

Di Lecce Francesca Dec 4 2025 at 4:12PM on page 26

Suggestion

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

Di Lecce Francesca Dec 4 2025 at 4:06PM on page 26

Suggestion

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

Di Lecce Francesca Dec 4 2025 at 3:57PM on page 11

Suggestion

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

Di Lecce Francesca Dec 4 2025 at 3:36PM on page 7

Question

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.

Di Lecce Francesca Dec 4 2025 at 3:34PM on page 7

Question

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.

Di Lecce Francesca Dec 4 2025 at 3:31PM on page 3

Suggestion

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

Di Lecce Francesca Dec 4 2025 at 3:30PM on page 3

Suggestion

I do believe this sentece here is reduntant

Subash Chandra Bose Dec 4 2025 at 10:35AM on page 27

Suggestion

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"