Junk Charts

Knit-picking

In celebrating the recent trend by "elite" colleges to lowering the cost of education, the Times printed this chart, the top part of which is shown here.

The three colors represent different levels of aid.  Blue means "grants replace loans"; red means "free tuition"; yellow means "parents pay nothing".  The colleges are grouped by the minimum qualifying income for the blue category.

The whole effect is of a knit.  We shall call this the "knit chart".

I believe a simple data table will do the job nicely.  If any reader has other ideas, please show us your work!

A few points to note about the original:

• Ordering by the minimum income to qualify for "grants replace loans" is arbitrary, as is alphabetizing colleges within each group
• Qualifying "at any income level" should be shown on the left of "$40,000 or below" rather than to the right of $100,000.  The current order is such that qualifying level increases with income from left to right, except from $100,000 to "any income", where it falls off a cliff.
• Qualifying at any income level is better shown as a separate column on the right disconnected from the income scale.  The current configuration devalues the effort spent in making a proper income scale.
  
• Too many lines of equal length, and too few yellow and red lines to make the knit chart effective
  
• Should the graph cater to parents interested in seeing what aid they qualify for given their income level?  Or should the graph highlight the breadth of aid available at individual colleges?

Reference: "The (Yes) Low Cost of Higher Ed", New York Times, April 20 2008.

PS. The original point about the "any income level" was incorrect as pointed out by Chris below.  I have replaced that with a different issue.

PPS. Matias' version (see comments) is a superb demonstration of the power of data tables, well-applied.   It is clean and simple, and addresses both the questions pointed out in the last bullet point.  The only thing sacrificed was the visual representation of the relative size of the income requirements, which I agree is the least valuable part of the original.  As usual, many thanks to our readers for coming up with great ideas!

Cram it like Koby

You have to gradually build up your gut by eating larger and larger amounts of food, and then be sure to work it all off so body fat doesn't put a squeeze on the expansion of your stomach in competition  -- Takeru Kobayashi, six-time champion of the Coney Island hot dog eating contest

Kobayashi is a phenom.  He can stuff 60 hot dogs or 100 burgers in ten or twelve minutes and show no consequences.  Ordinary people can't hope to emulate these feats.

Junk Charts sees Kobayashi as a hero; an anti-hero really.  We are ordinary people; we can't hope to cram it like Koby.  A message we keep repeating here is: too much data sinks a chart.

Not long after this chart showed up in the Economist, several readers urged us to take a look.  It's a well-nourished chart indeed, one to challenge Kobayashi, but for all that it contains, the reader has to try very hard to find insights.  What with the multiple colors, iron-fisted gridlines, above-and-below boxes, dotted and solid lines, and a legend with nine pieces split in two spots?  Besides, the U.S. boxes grab all the attention by virtue of them being wider (country being more partisan).

The key to unraveling this chart is to identify the relevant comparisons:

• UK average vs US average
• UK left vs US left
• UK right vs US right
• UK independent vs US independent

And then for the gluttonous:

• UK right vs US left
• UK left vs independent vs right
• US left vs independent vs right

In the junkchart version, we address these comparisons sequentially.

(Apologies for the tiny font.)

We are again using a small multiples approach that places four comparisons next to each other: average, left, independent, right. Consistently, the British is to the left of Americans.  The only places where the two cultures meet are where liberals agree on "ideology" and "military action".

Also note that we use a symmetric horizontal scale centered at 0.  There are too many charts out there where the center is not at the center!

A similar presentation addresses the other three comparisons.  Democrats in the U.S. are miles to the right of Tories in terms of "religion".  In the UK, Labor and Tories are not much different except on "ideology".  In the US, Independents lean closer to Democrats.

Joining the lines (I hear the grumbles) helps bring out the gap between the groups being compared.  Without lines, the chart would look like this.

It is often hard to keep track of which dot is which as they trade order from issue to issue.

PS. Anyone knows what is being measured on the horizontal axis?  The original graph mysteriously stated "respondents' views".

References: 

Eric Talmadge: "Pigout champion Kobayashi limbers up for hot dog gold" June 25, 2004

"Anglo-Saxon Attitudes", Economist, Mar 27 2008.

Progress and retrogress

Joran E. pointed to this "icky" chart he found on Clive Crooks' blog at the Atlantic. 


He ordered a "junkchart treatment", so here it comes.

First we wanted to process the triangles, dots and squares to make sense of this data.  We noted that the data came from a single year (2005) so the chart did not trace the development of the education sector over time.  But wait, it used a different route to get at the same idea.  The author compared different generations within each country to see if more and more citizens took university degrees.  So each vertical "arrow" was kind of a historical record of different generations within a country.  Under this criterion, Korea and Japan had come a long way while the US and China stagnated.

The chart is quite impossible to read as designed.  There is little reason to sort by 25-34-year-old proportion when the message concerns improvement over generations.  Besides, what about countries that apparently retrogressed?  (like Russia and Germany)

For this data, I returned to my favored bumps chart.  Here is version one.  There are two ways to read this chart: across countries, we note that most of the European states (blue) had similar profiles showing roughly a constant rate of growth.  The Asian duo of Japan and Korea (brown) had the most marked growth.  Of North America (black), Canada diverged from the US since the 35-44 generation.

Alternatively, we can focus on the change generation-over-generation.  From 55-64 to 45-54, almost all countries in this sample (except Japan) grew at the same rate.  Then between 45-54 and 35-44, the two Asian countries clearly set the pace.  The generation between 35-44 and 25-34 is most interesting: Korea has not slowed, Japan has slowed a little but still grew as fast as Canada.  A trio of European countries (Spain, Ireland, France) outpaced their neighbors.

Below I show version two.  This one combines bumps chart with small multiples.  North America, Europe and Asia/Australia are now in separate charts.  This removes clutter.

 

Small multiples re-imagineered

This chart gave me trouble.  I kept staring at it, staring.  Searching for the legend.  What could the several lines, in different colors, represent?  Take a look yourself.

Well, it turns out all three graphs were duplicates.  A different line was given dark blue to highlight a particular amusement park.

I have not seen this tactic used before.  This is like a small multiples concept except that every chart contains the same data.  Is it better than having just one chart?

Reference: "Will Disney Keep Us Amused?", New York Times, Feb 10 2008.

PS. [4/6/2008]  Here are two alternative charts contributed by our readers.  See comments below.

Derek suggested using sparklines:

Zuil reverted to basics:

Trying too hard

In the course of business and governing, a lot of charts are generated.  An anonymous tipster pointed us to a set created by the "Communities and Local Government" division in the UK government.  Judging from the content, this division has responsibility for economic development in local neighborhoods.

Below are a pair of exhibits.  Truly they are trying too hard!  What we see is a hybrid scatter-bubble chart.  Between the jargon, the acronyms (LAD, LSOA), the boxed text, the multi-color circles, the colored axis labels and lack of title, the reader is plunged into a state of confusion.

The chart can be unraveled.  Each district was evaluated based on two measures of "gaps in worklessness".  The vertical axis compares each district to the national average; positive numbers indicate an above-average district relative to the nation.  The horizontal axis compares the most deprived 10% neighborhood within each district to the local average; positive numbers indicate worst neighborhoods improving. 

Thus, the policy goal would be to move all districts into the upper right quadrant.  The multi-color bubbles were designed to show us the state of the nation.  On the left chart, 41% of the districts (or population?) reside in the improving districts while 19% live in deteriorating areas.

The following strategies can help improve readability:

• use English on the axis
• relegate technical definitions to the legend
• add succinct title to tell the story
• use color on the data rather than on axis or data labels
• use color to draw attention to the upper right quadrant
• remove bubbles
• define acronyms

 

Chart cleanup

Anna E. submitted this great example from Yahoo! Green.  A well-meaning chart but stuffed with redundancy.

Much appear to be going on and yet the entire chart contains 15 data points, Boston's ranks on each of 15 categories.  The bar lengths convey the same information as the data labels.  The legend provides a catchy name for different levels of ranks (0-10 = "leader"; 10-20 = "advances"; etc.).  The colors merely reiterate the catchy titles.  Similarly, the colored squares repeat the information in the bars.

In the name of green, we cleaned up this chart:

As a standalone graph, the categories should be ordered by Boston's ranks.  Here, we assume that cross-referencing cities is needed so we leave the order unchanged.

Playful and exploratory

I share reader Bernard L.'s enthusiasm for this very imaginative chart, courtesy of the graphics people at NYT.  The chart captures the ebb and flow of weekly movie receipts over the last two decades.

The details that particularly interest me include:

• The addition of area colors (on top of lines) serves to highlight box office successes; this really helps readers sort out the massive amount of data
• Nicely spaced text (and dots) does not interfere with our reading of the chart
• The hiding of text for less important films, plus taking advantage of interactivity to show their titles if the reader mouses over the respective areas

All of the above indicate a keen sense of foreground versus background.  Besides, the authors had the good sense to speak of inflation-adjusted box office sales; I'm tired of the movie industry proclaiming higher sales each year when ticket prices are rising, and the population is growing.

This is another chart where more data do not easily translate into better communication (see my guest post at Flowing Data).  While I like the playful nature of the interactive chart, it is left to the reader to discover the information buried in the data, such as the assertion in the header that Oscar-winning films typically take time to attain box-office success while many blockbusters do not Oscars make.

In this presentation, it is challenging to compare the total receipts of one film versus another (this requiring comparing oddly shaped, partially obscured areas).  It is also hard to compare across years since the data is spread out over a lot of space.

There may really be two types of graphics: the one like the example here which is a dictionary and designed for exploration; and the other kind where the designer has selected a subset of the data to make a specific point.

Reference: "The ebb and flow of movies", New York Times, Feb 23 2008.

Color scale

This map from the Economist illustrates pretty well the movement of population from middle America outwards from 2000-6.  The message reaches us despite the large volume of data painted.  (The gray shadow though was more than a little distracting.)

The map piqued my curiosity in two areas:

How did they determine the color scale?  The average change over all counties (6.4%) was obviously used.  Standard deviation was not since the ranges of change were unequal in size.

Was within-county percent change the best criterion?  As is, an 80% drop in a 2,000-people county looks the same as an 80% drop in a 200,000-strong county.

Reference: "The Great Plains drain", Economist, Jan 17 2008.

PS. I am traveling and so posting will be limited.

Football rankings 1.1

Long-time reader Jon sent in a different view of the QB data.  He uses a nifty tool in Excel to generate a parallel coordinates plot (also called profile plot) on which pairs of QBs can be highlighted and compared.

This chart exploits the foreground background concept very nicely.  One way to deal with abundant data is to highlight only those bits that matter to the question at hand, and relegating the rest to the background.

The gray lines in the background provide context without grabbing undue attention. He also converted every metric to a scale between 0 and 1, similar to what we did with our version.

The Eli Manning / Philip Rivers comparison shows that both QBs were below average on most of these metrics, with Manning near the bottom of each.

Maps and dots

Happy New Year

The cosmos of university ranking got more interesting recently with the advent of the "brain map" by Wired magazine.  This new league table counts the total number of winners of five prestigious international prizes (Nobel, Fields, Lasker, Turing, Gairdner) in the past 20 years (up to 2007); and the researcher found that almost all winners were affiliated with American institutions.

As discussed before, the map is a difficult graphical object; it acts like a controlling boss.  In this brain map, the concentration of institutions in the North American land mass causes over-crowding, forcing the designer to insert guiding lines drawing our attention in myriad directions.  These lines scatter the data asunder, interfering with the primary activity of comparing universities.

The chain of dots object cannot stand by itself without an implicit structure (e.g. rows of 10).  This limitation was apparent in the hits and misses chart as well.  Sticking fat fingers on paper to count dots is frustrating.  Simple bars allow readers to compare relative strength with less effort.

In the junkart version, we ditched the map construct completely,  retaining only the east-west axis.  [For lack of space (and time), I omitted the US East Coast and Washington-St. Louis.]  With this small multiples presentation, one can better contrast institutions.

To help comprehend the row structure, I inserted thin strikes to indicate zero awards. A limitation of the ranking method is also exposed: UC-SF has a strong medical school and not surprisingly, it has received a fair share of Nobel (medicine), Lasker and Gairdner prizes; but zero Lasker and Gairdner could be due to less competitive medical schools or none at all!

Reference: "Mapping Who's Winning the Most Prestigious Prizes in Science and Technology", Wired magazine, Nov 2007.