« Light entertainment: a parade of flags | Main | Failure to adjust is a mind trick: second mint »



Isn't the phrase "annualized growth rate (seasonally-adjusted)" a little too complicated for a general audience? (You might not be writing for one, but Mint probably is)

I get the need for precise language, but I don't think too many Mint users are going to comprehend the word "annualized." Maybe shift it to the end of the label, so people who don't understand it don't just stop reading? Perhaps "Seasonally-adjusted growth rate (annualized)".


If a data point moving up from stage to stage doesn't bump a data point down, then it isn't a bumps chart, it's just a line chart.

You got it right recently when you wrote: "one of the secrets of the Bumps chart -- the reason why it feels far less cluttered than it has the right to be -- is that no two data points will overlap, that is, for any given week, only one team occupies any particular rank."


"The 3% increment on the sales axis is unusual, as if to defy convention for the sake of defiance. I'd stay glued to a 5% increment."

Isn't it rather because most of the data points are around 3%,6% and 9%? (for Retail Growth Declines)
Wouldn't staying glued to a 5% increment also mean you do it to agree with convention for the sake of convention?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR.

See my Youtube and Flickr.

Book Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read

Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter