A few weeks ago, I did a guest lecture for Ray Vella's dataviz class at NYU, and discussed a particularly hairy dataset that he assigns to students.
I'm happy to see the work of the students, and there are two pieces in particular that show promise.
The following dot plot by Christina Barretto shows the disparities between the richest and poorest nations increasing between 2000 and 2015.
The underlying dataset has the average GDP per capita for the richest and the poor regions in each of nine countries, for two years (2000 and 2015). With each year, the data are indiced to the national average income (100). In the U.K., the gap increased from around 800 to 1,100 in the 15 years. It's evidence that the richer regions are getting richer, and the poorer regions are getting poorer.
(For those into interpreting data, you should notice that I didn't say the rich getting richer. During the lecture, I explain how to interpret regional averages.)
Christina's chart reflects the tidy, minimalist style advocated by Tufte. The countries are sorted by the 2000-to-2015 difference, with Britain showing up as an extreme outlier.
The next chart by Adrienne Umali is more infographic than Tufte.
It's great story-telling. The top graphic explains the underlying data. It shows the four numbers and how the gap between the richest and poorest regions is computed. Then, it summarizes these four numbers into a single metric, "gap increase". She chooses to measure the change as a ratio while Christina's chart uses the difference, encoded as a vertical line.
Adrienne's chart is successful because she filters our attention to a single country - the U.S. It's much too hard to drink data from nine countries in one gulp.
This then sets her up for the second graphic. Now, she presents the other eight countries. Because of the work she did in the first graphic, the reader understands what those red and green arrows mean, without having to know the underlying index values.
Two small suggestions: a) order the countries from greatest to smallest change; b) leave off the decimals. These are minor flaws in a brilliant piece of work.