Patiently looking

Voronoi (aka Visual Economist) made this map about service times at emergency rooms around the U.S.

 

This map shows why one shouldn’t just stick state-level data into a state-level map by default.

The data are median service times, defined as the duration of the visit from the moment a patients arrive to the moment they leave. For reasons to be explained below, I don’t like this metric. The data are in terms of hours and minutes, and encoded in the color scale.

As with any choropleth, the dominant features of this map are the shapes and sizes of various pieces but these don’t carry any data. The eastern seaboard contains many states that are small in area but dense in population, and always produces a messy, crowded smorgasbord of labels and guiding lines.

The color scale is progressive (continuous) making it even harder to gain an appreciation of the spatial pattern. For the sake of argument, imagine a truly continuous color scale tuned to the median service times in number of minutes. There would be as many shades as there are unique number of values on the map. For example, the state with 2 hr 12 min median time would receive a different shade than the one with 2 hr 11 min. Looking at the dataset, I found 43 unique values of median service time in the 52 states and territories. Thus, almost every state would wear its unique shade, making it hard to answer such common questions as: which cluster of states have high/medium/low median service times?

(As the underlying software may only be capable of printing a finite number of shades so in reality, there aren’t any true continuous scales. A continuous scale is just a discrete scale with many levels of shades. For this map, I’d group the states into at most five categories, requiring five shades.)

***

We’re now reaching the D corner of the Trifecta Checkup (link).

I’d transform the data to relative values, such as an index against the median or average in the nation. The colors now indicate how much higher or lower is the state’s median service time than that of the nation. With this transformed data, it makes more sense to use a bidirectional color scale so that there are different colors for higher vs lower than average.

Lastly, I’m not sure about the use of median service time, as opposed to average (mean) service time. I suspect that the distribution is heavily skewed toward longer values so that the median service time falls below the mean service time. If, however, the service time distribution is roughly symmetric around the median, then the mean and median service times will be very similar, and thus the metric selection doesn’t matter.

Imagine you're the healthcare provider and your bonus is based on managing median service times. You have an incentive to let a small number of patients wait an extraordinary amount of time, while serving a bunch of patients who require relatively simple procedures. If it's a mean service time, the values of the extreme outliers will be spread over all the patients while the median service time is affected by the number of such outliers but not their magnitudes.

When I pulled down the publicly available data (link), I found additional data fields. The emergency room visits are further broken into four categories (low, medium, high, very high), and a median is reported within each category. Thus, we have a little idea how extreme the top values can be.

The following dotplot shows this:

A chart like this is still challenging to read since there are 52 territories, ordered by the value on a metric. If the analyst can say what are interesting questions, e.g. breaking up the territories into regions, then a grouping can be applied to the above chart to aid comprehension.

 

Simple presentations

In the previous post, I looked at this chart that shows the distributions of four subgroups found in a dataset:

This chart takes quite some effort to decipher, as does another version I featured.

The key messages appear to be: (i) most English words are of Germanic origin, (ii) the most popular English words are even more skewed towards Germanic origin, (iii) words of French origin started showing up around rank 50, those of Latin origin around rank 250.

***

If we are making a graphic for presentation, we can simplify the visual clutter tremendously by - hmmm - a set of pie charts.

For those allergic to pies, here's a stacked column chart:

Both of these can be thought of as "samples" from the original chart, selected to highlight shifts in the relative proportions.

I also reversed the direction of the horizontal axis as I think the story is better told starting from the whole dataset and honing in on subsets.

 

P.S. [1/10/2025] A reader who has expertise in this subject also suggested a stacked column chart with reversed axis in a comment, so my recommendation here is confirmed.

Two challenging charts showing group distributions

Long-time reader Georgette A. found this chart from a Linkedin post by David Curran:

She found it hard to understand. Me too.

It's one of those charts that require some time to digest. And when you figured it out, you don't get the satisfaction of time well spent.

***

If I have to write a reading guide for this chart, I'd start from the right edge. The dataset consists of the top 2000 English words, ranked by popularity. The right edge of the chart says that roughly two-thirds of these 2000 words are of Germanic origin, followed by 20% French origin, 10% Latin origin, and 3% "others".

Now, look at the middle of the chart, where the 1000 gridline lies. The analyst did the same analysis but using just the top 1000 words, instead of the top 2000 words. Not surprisingly, Germanic words predominate. In fact, Germanic words account for an even higher percentage of the total, roughly three-quarters. French words are at 16% (relative to 20%), and Latin at 7% (compared to 10%).

The trend is this: as we restrict the word list to fewer and more popular words, the more Germanic words dominate. Of the top 50 words, all but 1 is of Germanic origin. (You can't tell that directly from the chart but you can figure it out if you measure it and do some calculations.)

Said differently, there are some non-Germanic words in the English language but they tend not to be used particularly often.

As we move our eyes from left to right on this chart, we are analyzing more words but the newly added words are less popular than those included prior. The distribution of words by origin is cumulative.

The problem with this data visualization is that it doesn't "locate" where these non-Germanic words exist. It's focused on a cumulative metric so the reader has to figure out where the area has increased and where it has flat-lined. This task is quite challenging in an area chart.

***

The following chart showing the same information is more canonical in the scientific literature.

This chart also requires a reading guide for those uninitiated. (Therefore, I'm not saying it's better than the original.)

The chart shows how words of a specific origin accumulates over the top X most popular English words. Each line starts at 0% on the left and ends at 100% on the right.

Note that the "other" line hugs to the zero level until X = 400, which means that there are no words of "other" origin in the top 400 list. We can see that words of "other" origin are mostly found between top 700-1000 and top 1700-2000, where the line is steepest. We can be even more precise: about 25% of these words are found in the top 700-1000 while 45% are found in the top 1700-2000.

In such a chart, the 45 degree line acts as a reference line. Any line that follows the 45 degree line indicates an even distribution: X% of the words of origin A are found in the top X% of the distribution. Origin A's words are not more or less popular than average anywhere in the distribution.

In this chart, nothing is on top of the 45 degree line. The Germanic line is everywhere above the 45 degree line. This means that on the left side, the line is steeper than 45 degrees while on the right side, its slope is less than 45 degrees. In other words, Germanic words are biased towards the left side, i.e. they are more likely to be popular words.

For example, amongst the top 400 (20%) of the word list, Germanic words accounted for 27%.

I can't imagine this chart is easy for anyone who hasn't seen it before; but if you are a scientist or economist, you might find this one easier to digest than the original.

 

 

Five-value summaries of distributions

BG commented on my previous post, describing her frustration with the “stacked range chart”:

A stacked graph visualizes cubes stacked one on top of the other. So you can't use it for negative numbers, because there's no such thing [as] "negative data". In graphs, a "minus" sign visualizes the opposite direction of one series from another. Doing average plus average plus average plus average doesn't seem logical at all.

***

I have already planned a second post to discuss the problems of using a stacked column chart to show markers of a numeric distribution.

I tried to replicate how the Youtuber generated his “stacked range chart” by appropriating Excel’s stacked column chart, but failed. I think there are some missing steps not mentioned in the video. At around 3:33 of the video, he shows a “hack” involving adding 100 degrees (any large enough value) to all values (already converted to ranges). Then, the next screen displays the resulting chart. Here is the dataset on the left and the chart on the right.

Afterwards, he replaces the axis labels with new labels, effectively shifting the axis. But something is missing from the narrative. Since he’s using a stacked column chart, the values in the table are encoded in the heights of the respective blocks. The total stacked heights of each column should be in the hundreds since he has added 100 to each cell. But that’s not what the chart shows.

***

In the rest of the post, I’ll skip over how to make such a chart in Excel, and talk about the consequences of inserting “range” values into the heights of the blocks of a stacked column chart.

Let’s focus on London, Ontario; the five temperature values, corresponding to various average temperatures, are -3, 5, 9, 14, 24. Just throwing those numbers into a stacked column chart in Excel results in the following useless chart:

The temperature averages are cumulatively summed, which makes no sense, as noted by reader BG. [My daily temperature data differ somewhat from those in the Youtube. My source is here.]

We should ignore the interiors of the blocks, and instead interpret the edges of these blocks. There are five edges corresponding to the five data values. As in:

The average temperature in London, Ontario (during Spring 2023-Winter 2024) is 9 C. This overall average hides seasonal as well as diurnal variations in temperature.

If we want to acknowledge that night-time temperatures are lower than day-time temperatures, we draw attention to the two values bracketing 9 C, i.e. 5 C and 14 C. The average daytime (max) temperature is 14 C while the average night-time (min) temperature is 5 C. Furthermore, Ontario experiences seasons, so that the average daytime temperature of 14 C is subject to seasonal variability; in the summer, it goes up to 24 C. In the winter, the average night-time temperature goes down to -3 C, compared to 5 C across all seasons. [For those paying closer attention, daytime/max and night-time/min form congruous pairs because the max temperature occurs during daytime while the min temperature occurs during night-time. Thus, the average of maximum temperatures is the same as the average of daytime maximum temperatures.]

The above dotplot illustrates this dataset adequately. The Youtuber explained why he didn’t like it – I couldn’t quite make sense of what he said. It’s possible he thinks the gaps between those averages are more meaningful than the averages themselves, and therefore he prefers a chart form that draws our attention to the ranges, rather than the values.

***

Our basic model of temperature can be thought of as: temperature on a given day = overall average + adjustment for seasonality + adjustment for diurnality.

Take the top three values 9, 14, 24 from above list. Starting at the overall average of 9 C, the analyst gets to 14 if he hones in on max daily temperatures, and to 24 if he further restricts the analysis to summer months (which have the higher temperatures). The second gap is 10 C, twice as large as the first gap of 5 C. Thus, the seasonal fluctuations have larger magnitude than daily fluctuations. Said differently, the effect of seasons on temperature is bigger than that of hour of day.

In interpreting the “ranges” or gaps between averages, narrow ranges suggest low variability while wider ranges suggest higher variability.

Here's a set of boxplots for the same data:

The boxplot "edges" also demarcate five values; they are not the same five values as defined by the Youtuber but both sets of five values describe the underlying distribution of temperatures.

 

P.S. For a different example of something similar, see this old post.