Junk Charts

Worthy of the Times

Andrew Gelman has put up a great post, discussing how he collaborated with the New York Times editors to transform his chart to a publishable form.  Some time ago, there was a discussion here about the publish-worthiness of my charts (actually, the lack thereof), and I explained that to take my charts to that level would require quite a bit of extra work.  Gelman speaks here from first-hand experience.

Here are the two versions side-by-side.  Readers on the Gelman blog are debating which version is "better" with Gelman himself voting for the revised NYT version:

Let's compile a list of the changes:

1. Removed 2000 data and relied on only 2004 data
2. Reduced number of groups of senators from 7 to 5 (with a special calling out of Senator Lieberman)
3. Re-ordered senators to facilitate classifying into Democrats, Independent, Republicans
4. Added annotation explaining the grouping of senators; in particular, qualified why the 49 Democrats and 32 Republicans were set aside
   
5. Removed scale labels on the top of the chart, retaining only the bottom labels
6. Vastly increased the area devoted to text labels, which now covered half of the chart
7. Added white vertical gridlines
8. Instead of coloring the cross marks, colored the background of the chart; introduced the yellow color for Lieberman (which Gelman originally colored blue)
9. Removed reference to the national average but explained clearly in the legend that the percentages are relative to the national average.
   

Of these, 2,3,4 are definite improvements. 1 is acceptable since 2000 and 2004 data are quite highly correlated (note, however, Iowa, Virginia and Ohio.) 7 looks brilliantly here although we typically don't recommend adding gridlines and such. 5 is also acceptable because of 7 -- with the gridlines, one doesn't need to have two sets of labels. 8 can be debated: I'd like to see a version with large colored squares instead of cross marks in lieu of the background; the current look is not bad. 9 can also be mulled over: would it be so bad as to insert in parentheses 73% after the words "national average" in the legend?  I suspect some feel that this may cause confusion because readers now need to understand relative versus absolute values. 6 is the most debatable because the data-ink ratio has been vastly reduced. 

There are several good features of the original chart that they left unaltered, which should also be duly noted:

• Allowed the positive side of the scale to extend to 10% even though the largest data only reached about 6%. While this creates empty space, it helps readers judge the magnitude of negative numbers relative to positive ones.
• Subdued horizontal gridlines
• Retained the title of the chart (I actually prefer that they use the title to summarize the finding as opposed to the current one which takes a neutral stance.)
• Retained the horizontal scale labels at 5% apart

One final comment on something omitted from both charts: I'd prefer that they plot all the dots for the 49 + 32 senators, on the top and bottom lines respectively, instead of just plotting the group averages.  It would be really interesting to see what the spread is around the 0% point.

Following one's nose 1

Andrew Gelman has a great post about a so-called Immigrant paradox here, which should be interesting to our readers too.

He posed a set of sharp questions.  My read, in reverse order:

6. The graph is pretty effective, I agree.  This is known as an "interaction plot".  The message the authors were trying to send was that the gap between immigrants and U.S. born in terms of prevalence of mental illness is not constant across sub-groups of Latinos.  For example, the gap for Mexicans (light blue) is larger than the gap for Puerto Ricans (pink).  Thus, the authors concluded that one should be careful about speaking of an aggregate (average) gap.

The graph lays this out clearly.  The steeper the line, the bigger the gap between the  immigrants and non-immigrants.

When Andrew showed this, I knew for sure someone will cry foul that a line is drawn between unrelated, discrete things.  Indeed, the very first commenter weighed in with this complaint.  In fact, whenever I show such charts to non-statisticians, a lot of people have this reaction.

So I'll take this as another chance to convince you to release interaction plots from jail.

Typically, a dissenter will offer up a dot plot as an alternative.  So let's look at the same chart without the lines.  Since the reader is supposed to figure out how the gap between U.S. born and immigrant groups across different subgroups of Latinos, the proverbial nose is tracing a line from a left dot to a right dot.  Thus, to follow one's nose is to mentally draw the lines I just removed.  The chart designer has done us a favor by making the lines explicit.

In addition, as Andrew pointed out, it is always better to try to get rid of the legend and put the line labels directly onto the chart.

One shortcoming of the interaction plot is that it does not disclose the relative importance of the different lines, which correspond to the relative proportions of people in these subgroups.  Without this information, the reader will likely assume the lines have equal weight.  This assumption, as I will explain in a future post, may be a problem.

This post dealt with the graphical aspect.  I will have more to say about Andrew's other points on the statistics in a future post.

A second lease on life

I hinted at it in the last post, and some readers also made similar suggestions.  What happens if we plot the U.S. life expectancy data in relative terms (indiced) rather than in absolute terms?

The result is highly revealing, and that is why we should always look at the data many ways.  While in the original chart, the differences in the race/gender segments were essentially obscured by the overall slowly-growing trend, in our new chart, we took out the trend, isolating the growth rates.



The reconstructed chart showed that:

• Between 1970 and roughly 1990, blacks of both genders gained in life expectancy at a rate higher than the national average, while white females lagged behind white males
• However, almost all of the gain by blacks were attained between 1970 and 1984, and in the 10-15 years following, this excess gain was wiped out so that by 1992 or so, the black male, black female and white male lines again converged.
• Starting in 1995, black males again achieved significant improvement in life expectancy.  This time, black females did not follow their male counterparts.  Meanwhile, white females continue to lag behind.

Not being a health care specialist, I can't say what happened to the cohorts of the 1970s, the 1980s and 1995.  One thing is for sure: these insights are hard to glean from the original.

 

Reference: "CDC says life expectancy in the US is up, deaths not", Miami Herald, Aug 19 2009.  CDC Life expectancy data.

Degrees of likeness 1

The NYT team just put up a fantastic visualization of the American Time Use Survey data, which purports to measure how the average American spends the time of a day.  (Apparently, thousands of people recalled what they did every minute of an average day.)  The amount of data collected is massive, and this graphic allows readers to explore the data in intuitive ways.

The chart shows for each minute of the day (horizontal axis) the proportion of people doing specific activities.  Not surprisingly, we spend more time sleeping than any other type of activity.  The axis and data labeling as well as gridlines are very restrained.

Normally, I am not a big fan of these proportional area charts because the only relevant dimension to look at is the vertical distance from one curve to the next but the focus on areas put equal weight on the horizontal and vertical distances.   The horizontal distance is meaningless, and thus the area is meaningless.

These designers found a solution to the problem, and good for them!  Because of the mouse-over effect, I could not save the actual appearance -- here, I show what it looks like.

By mousing over different parts of the graph (say, moving vertically), we can compare the actual proportions.  Terrific!

The key interest of this graphic is the following legend.

While the above graphic shows the use of time by all Americans in aggregate, this panel allows us to zoom in on specific groups of Americans.  How alike are Americans?

Reference: "How Different Groups Spend Their Day", New York Times, July 31 2009.

 

Space and time

When it comes to space or time in graphics, old habits die hard.   When we have spatial data, the default is to put it on a map.  When we have a time series, the default is to plot time along the horizontal axis.  Sometimes, these defaults work; other times, breaking up the map or straight-time-line works better.

Thanks to a reader, I noticed that Google put up a "Flu Trends" website to help us track the flu season.  They use two main charts to plot the data, as shown below.




On the right side is the time series, showing the severity of flu cases from month to month.  There are many great things about this chart and one serious flaw.  I love the fact that they did not plot time on the horizontal axis; they realize the seasonality and they create overlapping lines.  They make good use of foreground and background; it's easy for us to compare year to year differences.

The serious flaw: no vertical scale.  This was a problem with Google Trends from day one (see my post here).  They still haven't fixed it.  Because of this, we don't know if the peak shown was 5 cases or 5000 cases.  While for Google key word searches, one can excuse them for trying to protect commercial secrets.  I would imagine that this public health data is, well, public.  Since the apparent purpose of this chart is to allow citizens to declare a flu epidemic (say, when they see the current trend depart from the historical norm), not having the scale is a huge problem.

I also disagree with shifting the months around for the Northern Hemisphere so that the peaks of the graphs are aligned towards the middle.  It is better for the peaks to appear on the left and let the order of the months conform to our expectation.  (The "peak" would be split on the sides and the chart would look like a valley, which presumably is why they did it this way.)

The charts on the left side plot the spatial data, not surprisingly on maps.  Sadly, the standard exhibited on the time-series charts is nowhere found on these maps.

First, the legend is seriously deficient.

Second, the gradation of the colors is not fine enough, or put differently, the aggregation to the state/province level is much too coarse for any interesting pattern to be seen.

This poorly aggregated map becomes a farce when applied to the U.S.  There is not much left to be said, is there? 

Colorful maps

Bernard L. loved the recent NYT take on immigration in America.

The very pretty maps are found here.

An amazing amount of data is being visualized here.  Mousing on the map will pick up the specific data for each county.  There is a bar up top for discovering the evolution over time.  It would be great if there is an animation button so the map can be played out without clicking.  An animated gif will also do (similar to the disease map we featured some time ago).

The colors on the first map represent the origin of the top ethnic group in each county.  Within each group, the tint of the color further displays the percentage of the population that group accounts for.  The subgroups appear to be 0-2%, 2-5%, over 5%.  The last subgroup is very wide.

Not so keen on the second map with all those bubbles.  They show the number of people from each country by county.  The bubble size is proportional to population.  Every version of this map looks the same because the population is concentrated in the cities and the interior is sparsely populated, no matter what ethnic group.

Regardless, this is another laudable effort by the crew at the Times.

Reference: "Immigration Explorer", New York Times, March 10 2009.

From bad to worse

Pie charts can range from bad to worse.  Brent L. pointed us to a few on the right end of that spectrum.

Brent wrote: "The background image makes it almost totally unreadable.  And what does the forest scene have to do with programming?  *sigh*"

That's not to mention the oval rather than circle, the dizzling array of colors, the Excel-style legend that inverts the order of importance ("Other" at the top), etc. etc.

Again, a column chart would have been much clearer.  Since the total number of famous programmers is arbitrary, a chart of counts would work at least as well as one that plots proportions.

More here.

Reference: "Famous programmers from Adleman to Zimmerman", grokcode.

Political theater

Jens, a long-time reader, tried to re-make the boring data tables used to report poll data.  Here is an example from USA Election Polls (left) and his enhanced version (right).

Like Jens, I find most of the tabular presentation of poll data underwhelming.  Too much data hiding all the useful information.  For example, the pollster and polling date data provide a context for super-serious poll watchers to interpret the data; however, they do not present themselves in a way that actually help readers.  Read further for versions that bring out this data much better.

Meanwhile, Jens' revision uses color and ordering to bring out the current state of affairs.  The addition of electoral votes allows us to understand the relative weight of each row, countering the weakness of the tabular format, that each row has the same height, implying erroneously that they have the same importance.

There are a number of good web-sites where this type of data is presented in attractive ways.

I have been a fan of Political Arithmetik, which made great use of the pollster and polling date data mentioned above.  Those data have been averaged to show the overall trend while the individual poll results are plotted as dots in the background.  The polling date data is embedded in the horizontal positions of the dots.  Even more impressively, the margins of error are presented.  Remarkably, this race has been a statistical tie for all these months, the 95% lower limit never quite making it above the zero level.

Another great site is fivethirtyeight.com.  Below, they essentially turned Jen's enhanced table into a map.  The legend on the right perhaps represents what they call "East Coast bias"?  All of Nathan's graphs are very attractively produced; I just wish he'd put more labels on them (such as the differentials corresponding to shades of red and blue.)

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.

Little things

Reader Daniel sent us a great example of how even little things matter a lot in chart-making.  The left chart is the original.  The right chart (created by Daniel) shuffled the order of the legend to match the curves, and spaced them out.  All of a sudden, the chart is much easier to read.





Reference: "information behaviour of the researcher of the future", UCL, Jan 2008.