Via Dean Eckles on Twitter. We have this from Vox:
Have a great Labor Day! And thanks for keeping this blog alive.
Via Dean Eckles on Twitter. We have this from Vox:
Have a great Labor Day! And thanks for keeping this blog alive.
An anonymous reader sent in a Type V critique of the following map of July unemployment rates by state. The map was published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and used in a recent article in Vox.
Matt @ Vox took the BLS's bait, and singled out Mississippi as the worst in the nation. Our reader-contributor is none too pleased with this conclusion.
He noted that the red state stands out only because of the high "out of sample" top range of the legend. Three out of the seven colors are not found on the map at all! This is kind of like the white space problem when doing a line plot with large values and an axis starting at zero (for example, here), but the opposite. All the states are compressed into four colors, three of which are shades of orange.
The reader investigated, and reported back:
The top end of the legend seems to be set by Puerto Rico's 13.1%. Puerto Rico is omitted from the Vox map as well as from the BLS publication (link to PDF).
Happy Labor Day!
The New York Times Upshot team came up with a dataviz that is worth your time. This is a set of maps that gives a perspective on migration patterns within the US. The metric being portrayed is the birthplace of current residents of each state.
Here is the chart for California:
I see a few smart ideas, starting with the little map on the bottom left. It servies multiple functions. It is a legend mapping colors to four regions of the US. It serves as a visual guide to the definition of regions. It serves as an interactive tool to select states. Readers might remember the use of a pie chart as a legend in my remake of one of the Wikipedia pie charts (link).
The aggregation up to regions is what really makes this chart work. This aggregation reduces the number of pieces from about 50 to about 10.
They also did a great job with the axes and gridlines. Much of the data labels are hidden but the most important numbers are retained. These include the proportion of residents who were born in their home state, the proportion of residents who were born outside the U.S., and any state(s) that contribute a significant portion of residents. In the California example, we see that the proportion of Midwest-born people living in California has declined by a lot over time.
Users can interactively hover over the gridlines to uncover the data labels.
As you scroll through the states, there are some recurring patterns.
Some states clearly have become more desirable over time. Georgia, for instance, has seen strong in-migration (colored pieces) especially from non-Southern states:
This pattern is repeated in other southeastern states, including Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee.
By contrast, some states are not getting the migrants. As a result, the share of residents born in the home state has increased over time. The Midwestern states have this problem. For instance, Minnesota:
I also find a few states with special features. Nevada has always been a state of migrants:
Wyoming on the other hand has become popular with migrants over time but the composition has shifted away from MidWest states.
I'd have preferred presenting the charts in clusters based on patterns.
I haven't been able to figure out the multi-color spaghetti. I think the undulations are purely for aesthetic reasons.
One way to read the chart, then, is to first see three big patches (light grey for born in current state; white patch for born in other U.S. states; dark gray for born outside the U.S.). Within the white patch, we are looking for the shift between the colors (i.e. regions).
Matthew Yglesias, writing for Vox, cited the following chart from a World Bank project:
His comment was: "We can see that while China has overtaken Germany and Japan to become the world's second-largest economy (i.e., total area of the rectangle) its citizens are nowhere near being as rich as those of those countries or even Mexico."
Yes, the chart encodes the size of the economy in a rectangular area, with one side being the per-capita GDP and the other being the population. I am not sure about the "we can see". I am not confident that the short and wide rectangle for China is larger than the thin and tall ones for Japan and for Germany. Perhaps Matthew is relying on knowledge in his head, rather than knowledge on the chart, to come to this conclusion.
This is the trouble with rectangular area charts: they have a nerdy appeal since side x side = area but as a communications device, they fail.
Here are some problems with the chart:
Matthew should also have mentioned PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). If GDP is used as a measure of "wellbeing", then costs of living should be taken into account in addition to incomes. The cost of living in China is much lower than in Japan or Germany and using the prevailing exchange rates disguises this point.
In the Trifecta Checkup, this is a Type QDV.
Try your hand at fixing this one. There are no easy solutions. Does interactivity help? How about multiple charts? You will learn why I classify it as QDV instead of just DV.
[Update, 8/18/2014:] Xan Gregg created a scatter plot version of the chart. He also added, "There is still the issue of what the question is, but I'm assuming it's along the lines of "How do economies compare regarding GDP, population, and GDP/capita?" I'm using the PPP-based GDP, but I didn't read the report carefully enough to figure out if another measure was better."
Vox published this chart:
This sort of chart is, unfortunately, quite common in business circles. Just about the only thing one can read readily from this chart is the overall growth in the plug-in vehicle market (the heights of the columns).
To fix this chart, start subtracting. First, we can condense the monthly data to quarterly:
This version is a bit less busy but there are still too many colors, and too many things to look at.
Next, we can condense the makes of the vehicles and focus on the manufacturers:
This version is still less busy and more readable. We can now see Chevrolet, Nissan, Toyota, Ford and Tesla being the five biggest manufacturers in this category. All the small brands have been aggregated into the "Others" category. The stacked column chart still makes it hard to know what's going on with each individual brand's share, other than the one brand situated at the bottom of the stack.
Next, we switch to a line chart:
This shows the growth in the overall market, as well as several interesting developments:
A smoothed version of the line chart is even more readable:
Graphics is a discipline that often rewards subtracting. Less is more.
In the above discussion, I focused on the Visual aspect of the Trifecta Checkup. This dataset is really difficult to interpret, and I'd not want to visualize it directly.
The real question we are after is to assess which manufacturer is leading the pack in plug-in vehicles.
There are a number of obstacles in our path. Different makes are being launched at different times, and it takes many months for a new make to establish itself in the market. Thus, comparing one make that just launched with another that has been in the market for twelve months is a problem.
Also, makes are of different vehicle types: compacts, SUVs, sedans, etc. More expensive vehicles will have fewer sales whether they are plug-ins or not.
Thirdly, population grows over time. The analyst would need to establish growth that is above the level of population growth.
Is data visualization worth paying for? In some quarters, this may be a controversial question.
If you are having doubts, just look at some examples of great visualization. This week, the NYT team brings us a wonderful example. The story is about whether dogs feel jealousy. Researchers have dog owners play with (a) a stuffed toy shaped like a dog (b) a Jack-o-lantern and (c) a book; and they measured several behavior that are suggestive of jealousy, such as barking or pushing/touching the owner.
This is how the researchers presented their findings in PLOS:
And this is how the same chart showed up in NYT:
Same data. Same grouped column format. Completely different effect on the readers.
Let's see what the NYT team did to the original, roughly in order of impact:
Even simple charts illustrating simple data can be done well or done poorly.
Announcement: I'm giving a free public lecture on telling and finding stories via data visualization at NYU on 7/15/2014. More information and registration here.
The Economist states the obvious, that the current World Cup is atypically high-scoring (or poorly defended, for anyone who've never been bothered by the goal count). They dubiously dub it the Brazil effect (link).
Perhaps in a sly vote of dissent, the graphic designer came up with this effort:
(Thanks to Arati for the tip.)
The list of problems with this chart is long but let's start with the absence of the host country and the absence of the current tournament, both conspiring against our ability to find an answer to the posed question: did Brazil make them do it?
Turns out that without 2014 on the chart, the only other year in which Brazil hosted a tournament was 1950. But 1950 is not even comparable to the modern era. In 1950, there was no knock-out stage. They had four groups in the group stage but divided into two groups of four, one group of three and one group of two. Then, four teams were selected to play a round-robin final stage. This format is so different from today's format that I find it silly to try to place them on the same chart.
This data simply provide no clue as to whether there is a Brazil effect.
The chosen design is a homework assignment for the fastidious reader. The histogram plots the absolute number of drawn matches. The number of matches played has tripled from 16 to 48 over those years so the absolute counts are highly misleading. It's worse than nothing because the accompanying article wants to make the point that we are seeing fewer draws this World Cup compared to the past. The visual presents exactly the opposite message! (Hint: Trifecta Checkup)
Unless you realize this is a homework assignment. You can take the row of numbers listed below the Cup years and compute the proportion of draws yourself. BYOC (Bring Your Own Calculator). Now, pay attention because you want to use the numbers in parentheses (the number of matches), not the first number (that of teams).
Further, don't get too distracted by the typos: in both 1982 and 1994, there were 24 teams playing, not 16 or 32. The number of matches (52 in each case) is correctly stated.
Wait, the designer provides the proportions at the bottom of the chart, via this device:
As usual, the bubble chart does a poor job conveying the data. I deliberately cropped out the data labels to demonstrate that the bubble element cannot stand on its own. This element fails my self-sufficiency test.
I find the legend challenging as well. The presentation should be flipped: look at the proportion of ties within each round, instead of looking at the overall proprotion of ties and then breaking those ties by round.
The so-called "knockout round" has many formats over the years. In early years, there were often two round-robin stages, followed by a smaller knockout round. Presumably the second round-robin stage has been classified as "knockout stage".
Also notice the footnote, stating that third-place games are excluded from the histogram. This is exactly how I would do it too because the third-place match is a dead rubber, in which no rational team would want to play extra-time and penalty shootout.
The trouble is inconsistency. The number of matches shown underneath the chart includes that third-place match so the homework assignment above actually has a further wrinkle: subtract one from the numbers in parentheses. The designer gets caught in this booby trap. The computed proportion of draws displayed at the bottom of the chart includes the third-place match, at odds with the histogram.
Here is a revised version of the chart:
A few observations are in order:
Another reason for separate treatment is that the knockout stage has not started yet in 2014 when this chart was published. Instead of removing all of 2014, as the Economist did, I can include the group stage for 2014 but exclude 2014 from the knockout round analysis.
In the Trifecta Checkup, this is Type DV. The data do not address the question being posed, and the visual conveys the wrong impression.
Finally, there is one glaring gap in all of this. Some time ago (the football fans can fill in the exact timing), FIFA decided to award three points for a win instead of two. This was a deliberate effort to increase the point differential between winning and drawing, supposedly to reduce the chance of ties. Any time-series exploration of the frequency of ties would clearly have to look into this issue.
A graphic illustrating how Americans spend their time is a perfect foil to make the important case that the reader's time is a scarce resource. I wrote about this at the ASA forum in 2011 (link).
The visual form is of a treemap displaying the results of the recently released Time Use Survey results (link to pdf).
What does the designer want us to learn from this chart?
What jumps out first is the importance of various activities, starting with sleep, then work, TV, leisure/sports, etc.
If you read the legend, you'll notice that the colors mean something. The blue activities take up more time in 2013 compared to 2003. Herein, we encounter the first design hiccup.
The size of the blocks (which codes the absolute amount) and the color of the blocks (which codes the relative change in the amount) compete for our attention. According to Bill Cleveland's research, size is perceived more strongly than color. Thus, the wrong element wins.
Next, if we have time on our hands, we might read the data labels. Each block has two labels, the absolute values for 2003 and for 2013. In this, the designer is giving an arithmetic test. The reader is asked to compute the change in time spent in his or her head.
It appears that the designer's key message is "Aging Americans sleep more, work less", with the subtitle "TV remains No.1 hobby".
Now compare the treemap to this set of "boring" bar charts.
This visualization of the same data appears in WSJ online in lieu of the treemap. Here, the point of the article is made clear; the reader needs not struggle with mental gymnastics.
(One can grumble about the red-green color-blindness blindness but otherwise, the graphic is pretty good.)
When I see this sort of data, I like to make a Bumps chart. So here it is:
The labeling of the smaller categories poses a challenge because the lines are so close together. However, those numbers are so small that none of the changes would be considered statistically significant.
From a statistical/data perspective, a very important question must be raised. What is the error bar around these estimates? Is there anything meaningful about an observed difference of fewer than 10 minutes?
Amusingly, the ATUS press release (link to pdf) has a technical note that warns us about reliability of estimates but nowhere in the press release can one actually find the value of the standard error, or a confidence interval, etc. After emailing them, I did get the information promptly. The standard error of one estimate is roughly 0.025-0.05 hours, which means that standard error of a difference is roughly 0.05- 0.1 hours, which means that a confidence interval around any estimated difference is roughly 0.1-0.2 hours, or 6-12 minutes.
Except for the top three categories, it's hard to know if the reported differences are due to sampling.
A further problem with the data is its detachment from reality. There are two layers of averaging going on, once at the population level and once at the time level. In reality, not everyone does these things every day. This dataset is really only interesting to statisticians.
So, in a Trifecta Checkup, the treemap is a Type DV and the bar chart is a Type D.
I was traveling quite a lot recently, and last week, read the Wall Street Journal cover to cover for the first time in a while. I am happy to report that there are many more data graphics than I remember of past editions.
The following chart illustrating findings of an FCC report on broadband speeds has a number of issues (a related blog post containing this chart can be found here):
The biggest problem with the visual elements is the lack of linkage between the two components. The two charts should be connected: the one on the right presents ISP averages by the broadband technology while the one on the left presents individual ISP results. Evidently, the designer treats the two parts as separate.
If that was the intention, there are two decisions that create confusion for readers. First, the charts use two different but related scales. Just add 100% to the scale of the left chart and you get the scale of the right chart. There really is no need for two different scales.
Secondly, orange and blue are used in both charts but for different purposes. In the left chart, orange denotes all ISPs whose actual speeds were below their advertised speeds. In the right chart, orange denotes ISPs using DSL technology.
I also do not understand why some ISP names are bolded. The bolded companies include several cable providers (but not all), several DSL providers (but not all), one fiber provider and no satellite.
Lastly, I'd prefer they stick to one of "advertised" and "promised". I do like the axis labels, saying "faster than" and "slower".
One challenge of the data is that the FCC report (here) does not provide a mathematical linkage between the technology averages and the ISP data. We know that 91% for DSL is the average of the ISPs that use DSL as shown on the left of the chart, but we don't know the weights (relative popularity) of each ISP so we can't check the computation.
But if we think of the average by technology as a reference point to measure individual ISPs, we can still use the data, and more efficiently, such as in the following dot plot where the vertical lines indicate the appropriate technology average:
(The cable section should have come before the DSL section but you get the idea.)
The key message of the chart, in my mind, is that DSL providers as a class over-promise and under-deliver.
In a Trifecta Checkup, this is a Type V chart.
Darin Myers at PGi was kind enough to send over an analysis of a chart using the Trifecta Checkup framework. I'm reproducing the critique in full, with a comment at the end.
At first glance this looks like a valid question, with good data, presented poorly (Type V). Checking the fine print (glad it’s included), the data falls apart.
It’s a good question…What device are we using the most? With so much digital entertainment being published every day, it pays to know what your audience is using to access your content. The problem is this data doesn’t really answer that question conclusively.
This was based on Survey data asking respondents “Roughly how long did you spend yesterday…watching television (not online) / using the internet on a laptop or PC / on a smartphone / on a tablet? Survey respondents were limited to those who owned or had access to a TV and a smartphone and/or tablet.
In fact the Council for Research Excellence found that self-reported screen time does not correlate with actual screen time. “Some media tend to be over-reported whereas others tend to be under-reported – sometimes to an alarming extent.” -Mike Bloxham, director of insight and research for Ball State
The visual has the usual problems with stacked bar charts where it is easy to see the first bar and the total, but not to judge the other values. This may not be an issue based on the question, but the presentation is focusing on an individual piece of tech (smartphones), so the design should focus on smartphones. At the very least, smartphones should be the first column in the chart and it should be sorted by smartphone usage.
My implementation is simply to compare the smartphone usage to the usage of the next highest device. Overall 53% of the time people are using a smartphone compared to something else. I went back and forth on whether I should keep the Tablet category in the Key though it was not the first or second used device. In the end, I decided to keep it to parallel the source visual.
Despite the data problems, I was really interested in seeing the breakdowns in each country by device, so I built the chart below with rank added (in bold). I also built some simple interaction to sort by column when you click the header [Ed: I did not attach the interactive excel sheet that came with the submission]. As a final touch, I displayed the color corresponding to the highest usage as a box to the left of the country name. It’s easy to see that the vast majority of countries use smartphones the most.
Hope you enjoyed Darin's analysis and revamp of the chart. The diagnosis is spot on. I like the second revision of the chart, especially for analysts who really want to know the exact numbers. The first redo has the benefit of greater simplicity--it can be a tough sell to an audience, especially when using color to indicate the second most popular device while disassociating the color and the length of the bar.
The biggest problem in the original treatment is the misalignment of the data with the question being asked. In addition to the points made by Darin, the glaring issue relates to the responder population. The analysis only includes people who have at least a smartphone or a tablet. But many people in lesser developed countries do not have either device. In those countries, it is likely that the TV screen time has been strongly underestimated. People who watch TV but do not own a smartphone or tablet are simply dropped from consideration.
For this same reason, the other footnoted comment claiming that the sampling frame accounts for ~70 percent of the global population is an irrelevance.