I don't think anything will top the squarified treemap for me, but I love this page.
I really don't get the appeal of the sunburst style visualizations. They seem like the worst possible use of area to [fail to] convey information.
I think I agree with arboles that a tree visualization wouldn't be appropriate for this page. However, this reminds me of an old idea I had, to present tree-based data structures in a tree. I was thinking something like a phylogenetic tree representing the evolution of these data structures over time. Too much of a research project for me though.
Regarding arguments made for "sunburst style visualizations", it is usually that in Sunburst visualizations the drawing space increases with each level as the circumference of the radial plot increases. This is useful for trees, which usually have more nodes to show on lower levels closer to the leaves, than on higher levels closer to the root.
In comparison to the favored squarified treemap layout, sunburst visualizations are also able to represent an order in which the nodes may be given.
Regarding a tree visualization for the contents, we tried this in the beginning, but it often needs a lot of "editorializing" to decide which class to put a visualization technique in, if it would fit 2 or even 3 classes at the same time. Hence for the web-version, I switched over to a plain list. The old hierarchical layout can still be found at https://cs.au.dk/~hjschulz/pdfs/treevispo.pdf
I really don't get the appeal of the sunburst style visualizations. They seem like the worst possible use of area to [fail to] convey information.
I think I agree with arboles that a tree visualization wouldn't be appropriate for this page. However, this reminds me of an old idea I had, to present tree-based data structures in a tree. I was thinking something like a phylogenetic tree representing the evolution of these data structures over time. Too much of a research project for me though.