« Expanding circles of error | Main | Why my love affair with Apple is about to end »

Comments

Baptiste Hautdidier

I really disagree.

Why need your revised red/blue color scheme when it says hardly anything more than just the slopes? You can question their choice of setting a [30%;70%] range to define a job as "integrated". But if you accept it, then the chart is not poorly executed: it serves well the purpose of the authors.

The improvements I could think of would be: a colorblind-friendly color scheme, a 50% horizontal dotted line (as it defines how to read the slopes to measure "progress"), a softer shade for the changes that are not statistically significant.

And when you say that "there really isn't any occupation that went backwards--all those red lines in the bottom shaded chunk indicate shifts of only 1 to 4 percent, over 30 years"... Well the problem lies also in the upper part of the chart, unless you're happy with 'predominantly female jobs' becoming even more so in the future.

Jörgen Abrahamsson

Yes I like this chart as well. Not at all bad as these things go.
The data is disturbing of course.

Rick Wicklin

For technical readers, a scatter plot does a better job of showing trends in the data. For a redesign of the graphic and a discussion, see http://blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2012/10/15/women-and-jobs/ .

The comments to this entry are closed.

BOOTCAMP SUMMER '19



Link to Principal Analytics Prep

See our curriculum, instructors. Apply.
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

Residues