Stumped by the ATM

The neighborhood bank recently installed brand new ATMs, with tablet monitors and all that jazz. Then, I found myself staring at this screen:


I wanted to withdraw $100. I ordinarily love this banknote picker because I can get the $5, $10, $20 notes, instead of $50 and $100 that come out the slot when I don't specify my preference.

Something changed this time. I find myself wondering which row represents which note. For my non-U.S. readers, you may not know that all our notes are the same size and color. The screen resolution wasn't great and I had to squint really hard to see the numbers of those banknote images.

I suppose if I grew up here, I might be able to tell the note values from the figureheads. This is an example of a visualization that makes my life harder!

I imagine that the software developer might be a foreigner. I imagine the developer might live in Europe. In this case, the developer might have this image in his/her head:


Euro banknotes are heavily differentiated - by color, by image, by height and by width. The numeric value also occupies a larger proportion of the area. This makes a lot of sense.

I like designs to be adaptable. Switching data from one country to another should not alter the design. Switching data at different time scales should not affect the design. This banknote picker UI is not adaptable across countries.


Once I figured out the note values, I learned another reason why I couldn't tell which row is which note. It's because one note is absent.


Where is the $10 note? That and the twenty are probably the most frequently used. I am also surprised people want $1 notes from an ATM. But I assume the bank knows something I don't.

Tip of the day: transform data before plotting

The Financial Times called out a twitter user for some graphical mischief. Here are the two charts illustrating the plunge in Bitcoin's price last week : (Hat tip to Mark P.)


There are some big differences between the two charts. The left chart depicts this month's price actions, drawing attention to the last week while the right chart shows a longer period of time, starting from 2012. The author of the tweet apparently wanted to say that the recent drop is nothing to worry about. 

The Financial Times reporter noted another subtle difference - the right chart uses a log scale while the left chart is linear. Specifically, it's a log 2 scale, which means that each step up is double the previous number (1, 2, 4, 8, etc.). The effect is to make large changes look smaller. Presumably most readers fail to notice the scale. Even if they do, it's not natural to assign different differences to the same physical distances.



These price charts always miss the mark. That's because the current price is insufficient to capture whether a Bitcoin investor made money or lost money. If you purchased Bitcoins this month, you lost money. If your purchase was a year ago, you still made quite a bit of money despite the recent price plunge.

The following chart should not be read as a time series, even though the horizontal axis is time. Think date of Bitcoin purchase. This chart tells you how much $1 of Bitcoin is worth last week, based on what day the purchase was made.


People who bought this year have mostly been in the red. Those who purchased before October 2020 and held on are still very pleased with their decision.

This example illustrates that simple transformations of the raw data yield graphics that are much more informative.


Did the pandemic drive mass migration?

The Wall Street Journal ran this nice compact piece about migration patterns during the pandemic in the U.S. (link to article)


I'd look at the chart on the right first. It shows the greatest net flow of people out of the Northeast to the South. This sankey diagram is nicely done. The designer shows restraint in not printing the entire dataset on the chart. If a reader really cares about the net migration from one region to a specific other region, it's easy to estimate the number even though it's not printed.

The maps succinctly provide readers the definition of the regions.

To keep things in perspective, we are talking around 100,000 when the death toll of Covid-19 is nearing 600,000. Some people have moved but almost everyone else haven't.


The chart on the left breaks down the data in a different way - by urbanicity. This is a variant of the stacked column chart. It is a chart form that fits the particular instance of the dataset. It works only because in every month of the last three years, there was a net outflow from "large metro cores". Thus, the entire series for large metro cores can be pointed downwards.

The fact that this design is sensitive to the dataset is revealed in the footnote, which said that the May 2018 data for "small/medium metro" was omitted from the chart. Why didn't they plot that number?

It's the one datum that sticks out like a sore thumb. It's the only negative number in the entire dataset that is not associated with "large metro cores". I suppose they could have inserted a tiny medium green slither in the bottom half of that chart for May 2018. I don't think it hurts the interpretation of the chart. Maybe the designer thinks it might draw unnecessary attention to one data point that really doesn't warrant it.


See my collection of posts about Wall Street Journal graphics.

Probabilities and proportions: which one is the chart showing

The New York Times showed this chart (link):


My first read: oh my gosh, 40-50% of the unvaccinated Americans are living their normal lives - dining at restaurants, assembling with more than 10 people, going to religious gatherings.

After reading the text around this chart, I realize I have misinterpreted it.

The chart should be read by columns. Each column is a "pie chart". For example, the first column shows that half the restaurant diners are not vaccinated, a third are fully vaccinated, and the remainder are partially vaccinated. The other columns have roughly the same proportions.

The author says "The rates of vaccination among people doing these activities largely reflect the rates in the population." This line is perhaps more confusing than intended. What she's saying is that in the general population, half of us are unvaccinated, a third are fully unvaccinated, and the remainder are partially vaccinated.

Here's a picture:


What this chart is saying is that the people dining out is like a random sample from all Americans. So too the other groups depicted. What Americans are choosing to do is independent of their vaccination status.

Unvaccinated people are no less likely to be doing all these activities than the fully vaccinated. This raises the question: are half of the people not wearing masks outdoors unvaccinated?


Why did I read the chart wrongly in the first place? It has to do with expectations.

Most survey charts plot probabilities not proportions. I haphazardly grabbed the following Pew Research chart as an example:


From this chart, we learn that 30% of kids 9-11 years old uses TikTok compared to 11% of kids 5-8.  The percentages down a column do not sum to 100%.


Reading this chart won't take as long as withdrawing troops from Afghanistan

Art sent me the following Economist chart, noting how hard it is to understand. I took a look, and agreed. It's an example of a visual representation that takes more time to comprehend than the underlying data.


The chart presents responses to 3 questions on a survey. For each question, the choices are Approve, Disapprove, and "Neither" (just picking a word since I haven't seen the actual survey question). The overall approval/disapproval rates are presented, and then broken into two subgroups (Democrats and Republicans).

The first hurdle is reading the scale. Because the section from 75% to 100% has been removed, we are left with labels 0, 25, 50, 75, which do not say percentages unless we've consumed the title and subtitle. The Economist style guide places the units of data in the subtitle instead of on
the axis itself.

Our attention is drawn to the thick lines, which represent the differences between approval and disapproval rates. These differences are signed: it matters whether the proportion approving is higher or lower than the proportion disapproving. This means the data are encoded in the order of the dots plus the length of the line segment between them.

The two bottom rows of the Afghanistan question demonstrates this mental challenge. Our brains have to process the following visual cues:

1) the two lines are about the same lengths

2) the Republican dots are shifted to the right by a little

3) the colors of the dots are flipped

What do they all mean?


A chart runs in trouble when you need a paragraph to explain how to read it.

It's sometimes alright to make complicated data visualization that illustrates complicated concepts. What justifies it is the payoff. I wrote about the concept of return on effort in data visualization here.

The payoff for this chart escaped me. Take the Democratic response to troop withdrawal. About 3/4 of Democrats approve while 15% disapprove. The thick line says 60% more Democrats approve than disapprove.


Here, I show the full axis, and add a 50% reference line


Small edits but they help visualize "half of", "three quarters of".


Next, I switch to the more conventional stacked bars.


This format reveals some of the hidden data on the chart - the proportion answering neither approve/disapprove, and neither yes/no.

On the stacked bars visual, the proportions are counted from both ends while in the dot plot above, the proportions are measured from the left end only.


Read all my posts about Economist charts here


Two commendable student projects, showing different standards of beauty

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.

BARRETTO  Christina - RIch Gets Richer Homework - 2021-04-14

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.

Adrienne Umali_v2

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.



Metaphors, maps, and communicating data

There are some data visualization that are obviously bad. But what makes them bad?

Here is an example of such an effort:

Carbon footprint 2021-02-15_0

This visualization of carbon emissions is not successful. There is precious little that a reader can learn from this chart without expensing a lot of effort. It's relatively easy to identify the largest emitters of carbon but since the data are not expressed per-capita, the chart mainly informs us which countries have the largest populations. 

The color of the bubbles informs readers which countries belong to which parts of the world. However, it distorts the location of countries within regions, and regions relative to regions, as the primary constraint is fitting the bubbles inside the shape of a foot.

The visualization gives a very rough estimate of the relative sizes of total emissions. The circles not being perfect circles don't help. 

It's relatively easy to list the top emitters in each region but it's hard to list the top 10 emitters in the world (try!) 

The small emitters stole all of the attention as they account for most of the labels - and they engender a huge web of guiding lines - an unsightly nuisance.

The diagram clings dearly to the "carbon footprint" metaphor. Does this metaphor help readers consume the emissions data? Conversely, does it slow them down?

A more conventional design uses a cartogram, a type of map in which the positioning of countries are roughly preserved while the geographical areas are coded to the data. Here's how it looks:


I can't seem to source this effort. If any reader can find the original source, please comment below.

This cartogram is a rearrangement of the footprint illustration. The map construct eliminates the need to include a color legend which just tells people which country is in which continent. The details of smaller countries are pushed to the bottom. 

In the footprint visualization, I'd even consider getting rid of the legend completely. This means trusting that readers know South Africa is part of Africa, and China is part of Asia.


Imagine: what if this chart comes without a color legend? Do we really need it?


I'd like to try a word cloud visual for this dataset. Something that looks like this (obviously with the right data encoding):


(This map is by Michael Tompsett who sells it here.)


Come si dice donut in italiano

One of my Italian readers sent me the following "horror chart". (Last I checked, it's not Halloween.)


I mean, people are selling these rainbow sunglasses.


The dataset behind the chart is the market share of steel production by country in 1992 and in 2014. The presumed story is how steel production has shifted from country to country over those 22 years.

Before anything else, readers must decipher the colors. This takes their eyes off the data and on to the color legend placed on the right column. The order of the color legend is different from that found in the nearest object, the 2014 donut. The following shows how our eyes roll while making sense of the donut chart.


It's easier to read the 1992 donut because of the order but now, our eyes must leapfrog the 2014 donut.


This is another example of a visualization that fails the self-sufficiency test. The entire dataset is actually printed around the two circles. If we delete the data labels, it becomes clear that readers are consuming the data labels, not the visual elements of the chart.


The chart is aimed at an Italian audience so they may have a patriotic interest in the data for Italia. What they find is disappointing. Italy apparently completely dropped out of steel production. It produced 3% of the world's steel in 1992 but zero in 2014.

Now I don't know if that is true because while reproducing the chart, I noticed that in the 2014 donut, there is a dark orange color that is not found in the legend. Is that Italy or a mysterious new entrant to steel production?

One alternative is a dot plot. This design accommodates arrows between the dots indicating growth versus decline.



Losses trickle down while gains trickle up

In a rich dataset, it's hard to convey all the interesting insights on a single chart. Following up on the previous post, I looked further at the wealth distribution dataset. In the previous post, I showed this chart, which indicated that the relative wealth of the super-rich (top 1%) rose dramatically around 2011.


As a couple of commenters noticed, that's relative wealth. I indiced everything to the Bottom 50%.

In this next chart, I apply a different index. Each income segment is set to 100 at the start of the time period under study (2000), and I track how each segment evolved in the last two decades.


This chart offers many insights.

The Bottom 50% have been left far, far behind in the last 20 years. In fact, from 2000-2018, this segment's wealth never once reached the 2000 level. At its worst, around 2010, the Bottom 50% found themselves 80% poorer than they were 10 years ago!

In the meantime, the other half of the population has seen their wealth climb continuously through the 20 years. This is particularly odd because the major crisis of these two decades was the Too Big to Fail implosion of financial instruments, which the Bottom 50% almost surely did not play a part in. During that crisis, the top 50% were 30-60% better off than they were in 2000. Is this the "trickle-down" economy in which losses are passed down (but gains are passed up)?

The chart also shows how the recession hit the bottom 50% much deeper, and how the recovery took more than a decade. For the top half, the recovery came between 2-4 years.

It also appears that top 10% are further peeling off from the rest of the population. Since 2009, the top 11-49% have been steadily losing ground relative to the top 10%, while the gap between them and the Bottom 50% has narrowed.


This second chart is not nearly as dramatic as the first one but it reveals much more about the data.


Finding the hidden information behind nice-looking charts

This chart from Business Insider caught my attention recently. (link)


There are various things they did which I like. The use of color to draw a distinction between the top 3 lines and the line at the bottom - which tells the story that the bottom 50% has been left far behind. Lines being labelled directly is another nice touch. I usually like legends that sit atop the chart; in this case, I'd have just written the income groups into the line labels.

Take a closer look at the legend text, and you'd notice they struggled with describing the income percentiles.


This is a common problem with this type of data. The top and bottom categories are easy, as it's most natural to say "top x%" and "bottom y%". By doing so, we establish two scales, one running from the top, and the other counting from the bottom - and it's a head scratcher which scale to use for the middle categories.

The designer decided to lose the "top" and "bottom" descriptors, and went with "50-90%" and "90-99%". Effectively, these follow the "bottom" scale. "50-90%" is the bottom 50 to 90 percent, which corresponds to the top 10 to 50 percent. "90-99%" is the bottom 90-99%, which corresponds to the top 1 to 10%. On this chart, since we're lumping the top three income groups, I'd go with "top 1-10%" and "top 10-50%".


The Business Insider chart is easy to mis-read. It appears that the second group from the top is the most well-off, and the wealth of the top group is almost 20 times that of the bottom group. Both of those statements are false. What's confusing us is that each line represents very different numbers of people. The yellow line is 50% of the population while the "top 1%" line is 1% of the population. To see what's really going on, I look at a chart showing per-capita wealth. (Just divide the data of the yellow line by 50, etc.)


For this chart, I switched to a relative scale, using the per-capita wealth of the Bottom 50% as the reference level (100). Also, I applied a 4-period moving average to smooth the line. The data actually show that the top 1% holds much more wealth per capita than all other income segments. Around 2011, the gap between the top 1% and the rest was at its widest - the average person in the top 1% is about 3,000 times wealthier than someone in the bottom 50%.

This chart raises another question. What caused the sharp rise in the late 2000s and the subsequent decline? By 2020, the gap between the top and bottom groups is still double the size of the gap from 20 years ago. We'd need additional analyses and charts to answer this question.


If you are familiar with our Trifecta Checkup, the Business Insider chart is a Type D chart. The problem with it is in how the data was analyzed.