The colors are appropriate if the reference is the official inflation rate, which I think (I'm Australian so I don't follow this closely) for the US is about 4%.

Hmmm, a piece of art to figure out all these surfaces. I actually like it. In a mundane business presentation, this would probably a scatter (% of budget, price change on the axis, the same color for dots in the same category), losing some of the information that is in here.

I agree with Ken; the reference here isn't and shouldn't be zero, it should be some narrow band around the overall inflation rate, which it appears to be. Then blue items are those which tend to bring the inflation rate down, and red which bring them up.

The arbitrary shapes that these treemaps create is a problem *if* the information you are trying to convey is the exact relative sizes of the individual items; but that's not the case here, you're trying to show how they build a whole and if their relative ranking comes across only crudely, that's probably ok.

I am not a fan of these treemaps. Aside from some clumping, the shape and position of the data is arbitrary; a waste, I think, of scarce dimensions. Then too we have to move the mouse over each area to to reveal-- one tiny bit at a time-- the data.

All of this reminds me of a Unix dungeon exploring game I played during my misspent youth. To gather the clues, players had to discover and then visit each room in the maze.

I don't think a puzzle is a sound metaphor for information graphics.

It would help if the NY Times provided tables of the data in addition to the graphics.

A quick check online shows that the rate of inflation in March 2008 was 3.98%. So what's your objection, as a "more sophisticated numerate", to using one set of colors above 4% and another set of colors below that?

The fallacy in your argument is that the key must be colored relative to zero, not relative to the subject of the chart.

Ken and J and others: good observation that the red/blue divide was based on the estimated 4% aggregate inflation rate.

While it explains the situation, it does not make it useful. This red/blue divide identifies the components that are rising higher than the current inflation rate, and those that are rising lower than current inflation rate. What are we to make of such information?

If overall prices are rising by 10% and cable prices are rising by 5%, is the takeaway that we should thank the cable company?

The data in the NYT chart is the full CPI not the "core" CPI, so it does include all the volatile elements such as food.

The Fed, like central banks around the world, like to use modified CPI series which attempt to strip out volatile but (hopefully) mean-reverting components. The reason for this is not because they don't think that food prices affect people, but because monetary policy is a blunt tool and they want to avoid reacting to CPI movements (up or down) which are likely to soon reverse of their own accord. Of course, they will also monitor the full CPI as well in case any of the stripped out components start exhibiting a persistent trend.

So, while the 4% inflation figure in the chart may not accord with everyone's experience, it is simply an average figure and is not the result of stripping anything out.

I meant to say the 4% figure for cable does not have anything stripped out.

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