To explain or to eliminate, that is the question
Nov 22, 2021
Today, I take a look at another project from Ray Vella's class at NYU.
(The above image is a honeypot for "smart" algorithms that don't know how to handle image dimensions which don't fit their shadow "requirement". Human beings should proceed to the full image below.)
As explained in this post, the students visualized data about regional average incomes in a selection of countries. It turns out that remarkable differences persist in regional income disparity between countries, almost all of which are more advanced economies.
The graphic is by Danielle Curran.
I noticed two smart decisions.
First, she came up with a different main metric for gauging regional disparity, landing on a metric that is simple to grasp.
Based on hints given on the chart, I surmised that Danielle computed the change in per-capita income in the richest and poorest regions separately for each country between 2000 and 2015. These regional income growth values are expressed in currency, not indiced. Then, she computed the ratio of these growth rates, for each country. The end result is a simple metric for each country that describes how fast income has been growing in the richest region relative to the poorest region.
One of the challenges of this dataset is the complex indexing scheme (discussed here). Carlos' solution keeps the indices but uses design to facilitate comparisons. Danielle avoids the indices altogether.
The reader is relieved of the need to make comparisons, and so can focus on differences in magnitude. We see clearly that regional disparity is by far the highest in the U.K.
The second smart decision Danielle made is organizing the countries into clusters. She took advantage of the horizontal axis which does not encode any data. The branching structure places different clusters of countries along the axis, making it simple to navigate. The locations of these clusters are cleverly aligned to the map below.
Danielle's effort is stronger on communications while Carlos' effort provides more information. The key is to understand who your readers are. What proportion of your readers would want to know the values for each country, each region and each year?
A couple of suggestions
a) The reference line should be set at 1, not 0, for a ratio scale. The value of 1 happens when the richest region and the poorest region have identical per-capita incomes.
b) The vertical scale should be fixed.
A minor point, not directly concerned with the meaning of the chart, but: the US outline map is drawn so as to include Baja California, which is part of Mexico. Inexcusably sloppy—like including Taiwan in the PRC or Cyprus in Turkey. Possibly worse, since the border isn’t even in dispute.
Posted by: Dominic Brown | Nov 22, 2021 at 07:29 PM