Improve step 3 (scenarios)

[bmlancien]

I'd like to propose some design improvements for step 3 (if still on time), in order to make it easier to understand which scenario is selected vs which one has been chosen as base scenario.

Case 1: User hasn't selected or chosen any scenario yet. The first scenario is selected per default.

Case 2: User has chosen a scenario as base scenario and this scenario is also selected.

Case 3: User has chosen a scenario as base scenario but another scenario is selected.

[bmlancien]

@nesnoj I would like to add improvement ideas for that view :)

1. Sidebar (most important)

When I showed it to people, they thought the elements on the side panel were controls. I think we could reduce the amount of information there, as I can see now that there are only very few scenarios and I don't think this is helping the user a lot to see details on the side bar (the main content is enough), which could reduce the confusion. So the idea is just to show the scenario names and use the same layout as in step 5 with buttons. I thought at that time that showing the most important details would make sense, but now I can see that for just 3-4 scenarios, this is not necessary.

2. Data viz

I also think the data visualization can be improved. I'm not saying we have to do it (very limited time), but my designer side is feeling the urge to show improvement suggestions... In the mockup I tried to show the data in a way that could be more interesting for the user. My thoughts:

• I don't think that "Gesamtleistung Brandenburg" with a single 100% bar makes so much sense, because it will alway be 100%.
• I wanted to focus on the region, how much it would do and how it would increase in comparison to now (or another year). Also showing the results for Brandenburg and Germany. All this so that the user can compare the data, while the relative increase would help compare between scenarios too.
• The regional contribution shown as a bar will always look very small and it kind of gives the feeling that the regional contribution is not that important as it looks lost in the whole country contribution. So I'd prefer just a number.
• For "Flächenbedarf" on the other hand, it could be ok to do it this way, as it feels that there is no huge need for space in the region at the end, which is probably good for a lot of users.
• I left the 100% EE share bar for electricity usage, as might give a positive feeling about the results, but I think that just the number is enough.

If this will not be implemented for that tool, it might be useful for future web apps...