The lack of a common operalisation for identifying the types of visualisations and the interactive functions means that there are divergences in the investigations when establishing patterns. In this study, as in the one carried out by Knight (2015), infographics is the most frequent form of representation. The author states that this element gives the quality of the item, which could be related to the use of this type of visualisation in the awarded items.

Although there are studies that claim that data journalism rejects linear storytelling in favour of interactivity to improve the user experience (Borges-Rey, 2016), this research reinforces the position of those who found a trend towards reduced interactivity (Loosen, Reimer & Schmidt, 2017; Stalph, 2017; Tandoc and Soo-Kwang, 2017; Young, Hermida, and Fulda, 2018; Ojo and Heravi, 2018; Appelgren, 2018). The results show the predominance of static visualisations, ahead of mixed and strictly interactive ones. Stabe (2016) had already predicted that designers would become users. Giving them total freedom to modify the information was misleading and that those who did the projects examined seem to have understood this. This reduction in interactivity is closely related to including more specific and more basic interactive functions in the visualisations, exploring, filtering, and selecting. In this sense, it is expected that the number of animated visualisations that capture sequences of different graphics will increase, reducing the reader’s responsibility and facilitating the interpretation of the information. As Appelgren (2018) highlighted, it would provide a sense of interactivity, but it would be the journalist who decides what to show.

The detailed analysis of the visualisations has allowed us to meet the second objective of this research (O2), which is to identify differences and similarities in the visualisations among the nominated and award-winning stories. The results point to three differentiating elements:

The function of the visualisations within the stories. The award winners and the visualisations structured as a story prevail, giving greater visibility to the design and visual development than the text. At the same time, in the nominees, there is no defined function. Perhaps the commitment to the design because the graphic representation of informa-tion adds quality to the story, which would explain the lack of text-based nominated projects.

The use of interactive visualisations. In the winners, static visualisations predominate, while the rest are purely in-teractive. Although the nominees are also predominately static, the rest of the works combine this with interactivity, reducing the number of strictly interactive items. Despite the statics prevailing in the award-winners and some diffe-rences, it is not considered a determining component for obtaining recognition. At least, it does not seem that this characteristic conditions the quality of the work.

The elements of interactivity are added. In the winners, all the functions are used to the same extent, whereas in the nominees, there is a more significant disparity in this sense. It is especially striking that only the award winners opt for storytelling and personalisation, which involves the reader in the information and guides them through the story. It is thought that the incorporation of these elements has an impact on the quality of the item since it enables users’ data to be integrated and allows them to adjust the content to their needs.

On the other hand, it does not seem to affect the other variables such as:

The number of visualisations per item. Both nominated and award-winners include, for the most part, a single visualisation.