Too much information in the charts and a lot of extra work to decipher.

I think the elements are trying to show how many people would be affected by each condition. The shades of grey are giving the bounds. Dark grey is min and light grey is max.

The only thing the graphical elements convey to me is "bounds" on the rate at which people will be affected in a particular way (i.e the shades of grey). But it took extra work to figure that part out.

I think one of the things that make it confusing is the text overlayed on the graphics. Statements like "3 to 7 out of every 10000" are hard to digest and don't add much information.

Overall it took me about 2-3 minutes to figure it all out but I also have training in statistics, visualization, and data modeling.

I have to disagree with you. Although I didn't like the graph, it wasn't too difficult to figure out. The "box" represents the entire population of New York. The shaded areas correspond to the lower and upper limit on the number of people affected. So the first panel shows that about a third of New Yorkers could be infected with the flu, but maybe as few as a sixth would only be infected.

Good comments both. I'm still wondering...

1) Is there significance to the step in each shaded region? Is it more logical to do a square within a square?

2) What is the grid signifying? In particular, the outermost layer of cells are smaller than the interior cells, why is that so?

Each dot in the grid represents one New Yorker, no?

Then there would be 10,000 points in each grid?

If that is the case, then this is the dot matrix plot that I discussed here:

It doesn't scale well.

Its not obvious to me if the box is the entire population of NY or just 10000 ppl. Either way it doesn't matter for visualization purposes.

Another comment, by breaking it apart into seperate boxes it makes it hard to visualize "the total number of people affected". They should have produced at least one figure for that as well.

It was very easy to figure out. The steps, where they occur, are from filling the graph in a swath 10 wide where applicable. There is no special significance otherwise. It makes it marginally easier to verify the that the graph matches the data.

The grid is just an artifact as well. It is not sized nor positioned to be of much use.

The same information could be conveyed in a smaller, better designed graph.

OTOH, how good are the basic data?

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

## NEW BOOTCAMP

See our curriculum, instructors. Apply.
Marketing analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker. Currently at Columbia. See my full bio.

## Book Blog

Graphics design by Amanda Lee