traffic-lights

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Traffic Light Charts

交通灯图表

Metadata

元数据

Name: traffic-lights
Description: Multi-criteria assessment visualization
Triggers: traffic light, harvey ball, stoplight, RAG status, multi-criteria

名称: traffic-lights
描述: 多标准评估可视化
触发词: traffic light, harvey ball, stoplight, RAG status, multi-criteria

Instructions

说明

You are creating a traffic light chart to evaluate $ARGUMENTS.

Your task is to compare options across multiple criteria using a simple, visual format.

你需要创建一个交通灯图表来评估$ARGUMENTS。

你的任务是使用简单的可视化格式，在多个标准下对比不同选项。

Framework

框架

Visual Options

可视化选项

Traffic Lights (RAG)

🟢 Green = Good / On track / Above target
🟡 Yellow/Amer = Caution / At risk / Near target
🔴 Red = Bad / Off track / Below target

Harvey Balls (Half-moons)

○  Empty    = 0% / None / Very poor
◔  Quarter  = 25% / Below average
◑  Half     = 50% / Average
◕  Three-Q  = 75% / Above average
●  Full     = 100% / Excellent

Arrows

↑↑ Strong positive
↑   Positive
→   Neutral
↓   Negative
↓↓  Strong negative

交通灯（RAG）

🟢 绿色 = 良好/按计划推进/超出目标
🟡 黄色/琥珀色 = 注意/存在风险/接近目标
🔴 红色 = 不佳/偏离计划/未达目标

Harvey球（半月形）

○ 空 = 0% / 无 / 极差
◔ 四分之一 = 25% / 低于平均
◑ 一半 = 50% / 平均
◕ 四分之三 = 75% / 高于平均
● 满 = 100% / 优秀

箭头

↑↑ 强正向
↑ 正向
→ 中性
↓ 负向
↓↓ 强负向

When to Use Which

适用场景对比

Chart Type	Best For
Traffic Lights	Status, progress, alerts
Harvey Balls	Gradual comparison, rating
Arrows	Trends, momentum
Stars	Customer ratings, reviews
Numbers	Precision needed

图表类型	最佳适用场景
交通灯	状态、进度、警报
Harvey球	渐进式对比、评分
箭头	趋势、发展势头
星级	客户评分、评价
数字	需要精准数据的场景

Standard Applications

标准应用场景

Competitive Comparison - Us vs. competitors on key criteria
Option Evaluation - Compare alternatives for decision
Status Dashboard - Project/portfolio health
Gap Analysis - Current vs. desired state
Vendor Selection - Compare suppliers on requirements

竞品对比 - 我方与竞品在关键标准上的对比
选项评估 - 对比备选方案以辅助决策
状态仪表盘 - 项目/项目组合健康度
差距分析 - 当前状态与预期状态的对比
供应商选择 - 根据需求对比不同供应商

Output Process

输出流程

Define criteria - What dimensions matter?
Set scale - What does each color/symbol mean?
Gather data - Assess each option on each criterion
Apply ratings - Consistent methodology
Calculate overall - Summary score
Visualize - Create the chart
Annotate - Add context and insights
Interpret - Draw conclusions

定义标准 - 哪些维度是重要的？
设定刻度 - 每种颜色/符号代表什么？
收集数据 - 在每个标准下评估每个选项
应用评分 - 使用一致的方法
计算总分 - 汇总得分
可视化 - 创建图表
添加注释 - 补充背景信息和洞察
解读 - 得出结论

Output Format

输出格式

undefined

undefined

Traffic Light Chart: [Subject]

交通灯图表: [主题]

Assessment Criteria

评估标准

#	Criterion	Weight	Definition
1	[Criterion 1]	20%	🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z
2	[Criterion 2]	15%	🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z
3	[Criterion 3]	25%	🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z
4	[Criterion 4]	15%	🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z
5	[Criterion 5]	10%	🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z
6	[Criterion 6]	15%	🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z
	Total	100%

#	标准	权重	定义
1	[标准1]	20%	🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z
2	[标准2]	15%	🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z
3	[标准3]	25%	🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z
4	[标准4]	15%	🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z
5	[标准5]	10%	🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z
6	[标准6]	15%	🟢=X, 🟡=Y, 🔴=Z
	总计	100%

Traffic Light Matrix

交通灯矩阵

Criterion	Option A	Option B	Option C	Option D
1. [Criterion 1]	🟢	🟡	🟢	🔴
2. [Criterion 2]	🟡	🟢	🟡	🟡
3. [Criterion 3]	🟢	🔴	🟢	🟢
4. [Criterion 4]	🟢	🟢	🟡	🟡
5. [Criterion 5]	🟡	🟢	🔴	🟢
6. [Criterion 6]	🔴	🟡	🟢	🟡
OVERALL	🟢	🟡	🟢	🟡

Legend:

🟢 Green = Strong / Meets requirements
🟡 Yellow = Moderate / Partially meets
🔴 Red = Weak / Does not meet

标准	选项A	选项B	选项C	选项D
1. [标准1]	🟢	🟡	🟢	🔴
2. [标准2]	🟡	🟢	🟡	🟡
3. [标准3]	🟢	🔴	🟢	🟢
4. [标准4]	🟢	🟢	🟡	🟡
5. [标准5]	🟡	🟢	🔴	🟢
6. [标准6]	🔴	🟡	🟢	🟡
整体评分	🟢	🟡	🟢	🟡

图例:

🟢 绿色 = 优秀 / 满足要求
🟡 黄色 = 中等 / 部分满足
🔴 红色 = 薄弱 / 未满足

Scoring (Optional Quantitative)

评分（可选量化方式）

Criterion	Weight	Option A	Option B	Option C	Option D
1. [Criterion]	20%	3 (0.6)	2 (0.4)	3 (0.6)	1 (0.2)
2. [Criterion]	15%	2 (0.3)	3 (0.45)	2 (0.3)	2 (0.3)
3. [Criterion]	25%	3 (0.75)	1 (0.25)	3 (0.75)	3 (0.75)
4. [Criterion]	15%	3 (0.45)	3 (0.45)	2 (0.3)	2 (0.3)
5. [Criterion]	10%	2 (0.2)	3 (0.3)	1 (0.1)	3 (0.3)
6. [Criterion]	15%	1 (0.15)	2 (0.3)	3 (0.45)	2 (0.3)
WEIGHTED TOTAL	100%	2.45	2.15	2.50	2.15
RANK		2nd	3rd	1st	3rd

Scale: 1=Red, 2=Yellow, 3=Green

标准	权重	选项A	选项B	选项C	选项D
1. [标准]	20%	3 (0.6)	2 (0.4)	3 (0.6)	1 (0.2)
2. [标准]	15%	2 (0.3)	3 (0.45)	2 (0.3)	2 (0.3)
3. [标准]	25%	3 (0.75)	1 (0.25)	3 (0.75)	3 (0.75)
4. [标准]	15%	3 (0.45)	3 (0.45)	2 (0.3)	2 (0.3)
5. [标准]	10%	2 (0.2)	3 (0.3)	1 (0.1)	3 (0.3)
6. [标准]	15%	1 (0.15)	2 (0.3)	3 (0.45)	2 (0.3)
加权总分	100%	2.45	2.15	2.50	2.15
排名		第2名	第3名	第1名	第3名

刻度: 1=红色, 2=黄色, 3=绿色

Alternative: Harvey Ball Format

替代格式：Harvey球格式

Criterion	Option A	Option B	Option C	Option D
1. [Criterion]	●	◑	●	◔
2. [Criterion]	◑	●	◑	◑
3. [Criterion]	●	○	●	◑
4. [Criterion]	●	●	◑	◑
5. [Criterion]	◑	●	◔	●
6. [Criterion]	◔	◑	●	◑
OVERALL	◕	◑	●	◑

Legend:

○ None (0%) | ◔ Quarter (25%) | ◑ Half (50%) | ◕ Three-Q (75%) | ● Full (100%)

标准	选项A	选项B	选项C	选项D
1. [标准]	●	◑	●	◔
2. [标准]	◑	●	◑	◑
3. [标准]	●	○	●	◑
4. [标准]	●	●	◑	◑
5. [标准]	◑	●	◔	●
6. [标准]	◔	◑	●	◑
整体评分	◕	◑	●	◑

图例:

○ 无 (0%) | ◔ 四分之一 (25%) | ◑ 一半 (50%) | ◕ 四分之三 (75%) | ● 满 (100%)

Pattern Analysis

模式分析

Strengths by Option

Option	Key Strengths	Key Weaknesses
Option A	[Criterion 1, 3, 4]	[Criterion 6]
Option B	[Criterion 2, 4, 5]	[Criterion 3]
Option C	[Criterion 1, 3, 6]	[Criterion 5]
Option D	[Criterion 1, 3, 5]	[Criterion 1]

Patterns Observed

[Pattern 1 - e.g., "All options score well on Criterion 4"]
[Pattern 2 - e.g., "Criterion 3 shows largest differentiation"]
[Pattern 3 - e.g., "No option scores green on all criteria"]

各选项优劣势

选项	核心优势	核心劣势
选项A	[标准1, 3, 4]	[标准6]
选项B	[标准2, 4, 5]	[标准3]
选项C	[标准1, 3, 6]	[标准5]
选项D	[标准1, 3, 5]	[标准1]

观察到的模式

[模式1 - 例如：“所有选项在标准4上得分都不错”]
[模式2 - 例如：“标准3的区分度最大”]
[模式3 - 例如：“没有选项在所有标准上都得绿色”]

Recommendation

建议

Top Choice: [Option C]

Rationale: [Why this option]
Trade-offs: [What we give up]

Runner-up: [Option A]

When to consider: [Situations where this is better]

Not Recommended: [Option D]

Why not: [Key deficiencies]

undefined

首选方案: [选项C]

理由: [选择该选项的原因]
权衡点: [需要做出的让步]

备选方案: [选项A]

适用场景: [更适合该选项的情况]

不推荐方案: [选项D]

原因: [核心缺陷]

undefined

Tips

提示

Define criteria before rating - don't retrofit
Be consistent - same assessor or calibrated team
Don't have too many criteria (6-10 is optimal)
Weight criteria by importance
Use supporting data in appendix
The overall score should be a guide, not a rule
Patterns matter more than individual cells
Document the rationale for each rating

先定义标准再评分 - 不要事后补全
保持一致性 - 由同一评估者或校准后的团队进行评估
标准数量不宜过多（6-10个为最佳）
根据重要性为标准分配权重
在附录中使用支撑数据
整体得分仅作参考，而非绝对规则
模式比单个单元格的数据更重要
记录每个评分的理由

References

参考资料

Few, Stephen. Information Dashboard Design. 2006.
Tufte, Edward. Beautiful Evidence. 2006.

Few, Stephen. Information Dashboard Design. 2006.
Tufte, Edward. Beautiful Evidence. 2006.