Students demonstrate how analytics underlie strong dataviz

In today's post, I'm delighted to feature work by several students of Ray Vella's data visualization class at NYU. They have been asked to improve the following Economist chart entitled "The Rich Get Richer".

In my guest lecture to the class, I emphasized the importance of upfront analytics when constructing data visualizations.

One of the key messages is pay attention to definitions. How does the Economist define "rich" and "poor"? (it's not what you think). Instead of using percentiles (e.g. top 1% of the income distribution), they define "rich" as people living in the richest region by average GDP, and "poor" as people living in the poorest region by average GDP. Thus, the "gap" between the rich and the poor is measured by the difference in GDP between the average persons in those two regions.

I don't like this metric at all but we'll just have to accept that that's the data available for the class assignment.

***

Shulin Huang's work is notable in how she clarifies the underlying algebra.

The middle section classifies the countries into two groups, those with widening vs narrowing gaps. The side panels show the two components of the gap change. The gap change is the sum of the change in the richest region and the change in the poorest region.

If we take the U.S. as an example, the gap increased by 1976 units. This is because the richest region gained 1777 while the poor region lost 199. Germany has a very different experience: the richest region regressed by 2215 while the poorest region improved by 424, leading to the gap narrowing by 2638.

Note how important it is to keep the order of the countries fixed across all three panels. I'm not sure how she decided the order of these countries, which is a small oversight in an otherwise excellent effort.

Shulin's text is very thoughtful throughout. The chart title clearly states "rich regions" rather than "the rich". Take a look at the bottom of the side panels. The label "national AVG" shows that the zero level is the national average. Then, the label "regions pulled further ahead" perfectly captures the positive direction.

Compared to the original, this chart is much more easily understood. The secret is the clarity of thought, the deep understanding of the nature of the data.

***

Michael Unger focuses his work on elucidating the indexing strategy employed by the Economist. In the original, each value of regional average GDP is indexed to the national average of the relevant year. A number like 150 means the region has an average GDP for the given year that is 50% higher than the national average. It's tough to explain how such indices work.

Michael's revision goes back to the raw data. He presents them in two panels. On the left, the absolute change over time in the average GDPs are presented for each of the richest/poorest region while on the right, the relative change is shown.

(Some of the country labels are incorrect. I'll replace with a corrected version when I receive one.)

Presenting both sides is not redundant. In France, for example, the richest region improved by 17K while the poorest region went up by not quite 6K. But 6K on a much lower base represents a much higher proportional jump as the right side shows.

***

Related to Michael's work, but even simpler, is Debbie Hsieh's effort.

Debbie reduces the entire exercise to one message - the relative change over time in average GDP between the richest and poorest region in each country. In this simplest presentation, if both columns point up, then both the richest and the poorest region increased their average GDP; if both point down, then both regions suffered GDP drops.

If the GDP increased in the richest region while it decreased in the poorest region, then the gap widened by the most. This is represented by the blue column pointing up and the red column pointing down.

In some countries (e.g. Sweden), the poorest region (orange) got worse while the richest region (blue) improved slightly. In Italy and Spain, both the best and worst regions gained in average GDPs although the richest region attained a greater relative gain.

While Debbie's chart is simpler, it hides something that Michael's work shows more clearly. If both the richest and poorest regions increased GDP by the same percentage amount, the average person in the richest region actually experienced a higher absolute increase because the base of the percentage is higher.

***

The numbers across these charts aren't necessarily well aligned. That's actually one of the challenges of this dataset. There are many ways to process the data, and small differences in how each student handles the data lead to differences in the derived values, resulting in differences in the visual effects.

Simple presentations

In the previous post, I looked at this chart that shows the distributions of four subgroups found in a dataset:

This chart takes quite some effort to decipher, as does another version I featured.

The key messages appear to be: (i) most English words are of Germanic origin, (ii) the most popular English words are even more skewed towards Germanic origin, (iii) words of French origin started showing up around rank 50, those of Latin origin around rank 250.

***

If we are making a graphic for presentation, we can simplify the visual clutter tremendously by - hmmm - a set of pie charts.

For those allergic to pies, here's a stacked column chart:

Both of these can be thought of as "samples" from the original chart, selected to highlight shifts in the relative proportions.

I also reversed the direction of the horizontal axis as I think the story is better told starting from the whole dataset and honing in on subsets.

 

P.S. [1/10/2025] A reader who has expertise in this subject also suggested a stacked column chart with reversed axis in a comment, so my recommendation here is confirmed.

Prime visual story-telling

A story from the New York Times about New York City neighborhoods has been making the rounds on my Linkedin feed. The Linkedin post sends me to this interactive data visualization page (link).

Here, you will find a multi-colored map.

The colors show the extant of named neighborhoods in the city. If you look closely, the boundaries between neighborhoods are blurred since it's often not clear where one neighborhood ends and where another one begins. I was expecting this effect when I recognize the names of the authors, who have previously published other maps that obsess over spatial uncertainty.

I clicked on an area for which I know there may be differing opinions:

There was less controversy than I expected.

***

What was the dataset behind this dataviz project? How did they get such detailed data on every block of the city? Wouldn't they have to interview a lot of residents to compile the data?

I'm quite impressed with what they did. They put up a very simple survey (emphasis on: very simple). This survey is only possible with modern browser technology. It asks the respondent to pinpoint the location of where they live, and name their neighborhood. Then it asks the respondent to draw a polygon around their residence to include the extant of the named neighborhood. This consists of a few simple mouse clicks on the map that shows the road network. Finally, the survey collects optional information on alternative names for the neighborhood, etc.

When they process the data, they assign the respondent's neighborhood name to all blocks encircled by the polygon. This creates a lot of data in a few brush strokes, so to speak. This is a small (worthwhile) tradeoff even though the respondent didn't really give an answer for every block.

***

Bear with me, I'm getting to the gist of this blog post. The major achievement isn't the page that was linked to above. The best thing the dataviz team did here is the visual story that walks the reader through insights drawn from the dataviz. You can find the visual story here.

What are the components of a hugely impressive visual story?

• It combines data visualization with old-fashioned archival research. The historical tidbits add a lot of depth to the story.
• It combines data visualization with old-fashioned reporting. The quotations add context to how people think about neighborhoods - something that cannot be obtained from the arms-length process of conducting an online survey.
• It highlights curated insights from the underlying data - even walking the reader step by step through the relevant sections of the dataviz that illustrate these insights.

At the end of this story, some fraction of users may be tempted to go back to the interactive dataviz to search for other insights, or obtain answers to their personalized questions. They are much better prepared to do so, having just seen how to use the interactive tool!

***

The part of the visual story I like best is toward the end. Instead of plotting all the data on the map, they practice some restraint, and filter the data. They show the boundaries that have reached at least a certain level of consensus among the respondents.

The following screenshot shows those areas for which at least 90% agree.

Pardon the white text box, I wasn't able to remove it.

***

One last thing...

Every time an analyst touches data, or does something with data, s/he imposes assumptions, and sometimes, these assumptions are so subtle that even the analyst may not have noticed. Frequently, these assumptions are baked into the analytical "models," which is why they may fall through the cracks.

One such assumption in making this map is that every block in the city belongs to at least one named neighborhood. An alternative assumption is that neighborhoods are named only because certain blocks have things in common, and because these naming events occur spontaneously, it's perfectly ok to have blocks that aren't part of any named neighborhood.

 

 

Do you want a taste of the new hurricane cone?

The National Hurricane Center (NHC) put out a press release (link to PDF) to announce upcoming changes (in August 2024) to their "hurricane cone" map. This news was picked up by Miami Herald (link).

The above example is what the map looks like. (The data are probably fake since the new map is not yet implemented.)

The cone map has been a focus of research because experts like Alberto Cairo have been highly critical of its potential to mislead. Unfortunately, the more attention paid to it, the more complicated the map has become.

The latest version of this map comprises three layers.

The bottom layer is the so-called "cone". This is the white patch labeled below as the "potential track area (day 1-5)".  Researchers dislike this element because they say readers tend to misinterpret the cone as predicting which areas would be damaged by hurricane winds when the cone is intended to depict the uncertainty about the path of the hurricane. Prior criticism has led the NHC to add the text at the top of the chart, saying "The cone contains the probable path of the storm center but does not show the size of the storm. Hazardous conditions can occur outside of the cone."

The middle layer are the multi-colored bits. Two of these show the areas for which the NHC has issued "watches" and "warnings". All of these color categories represent wind speeds at different times. Watches and warnings are forecasts while the other colors indicate "current" wind speeds. 

The top layer consists of black dots. These provide a single forecast of the most likely position of the storm, with the S, H, M labels indicating the most likely range of wind speeds at forecast times.

***

Let's compare the new cone map to a real hurricane map from 2020. (This older map came from a prior piece also by NHC.)

Can we spot the differences?

To my surprise, the differences were minor, in spite of the pre-announced changes.

The first difference is a simplification. Instead of dividing the white cone (the bottom layer) into two patches -- a white patch for days 1-3, and a dotted transparent patch for days 4-5, the new map aggregates the two periods. Visually, simplifying makes the map less busy but loses the implicit acknowledge found in the old map that forecasts further out are not as reliable.

The second point of departure is the addition of "inland" warnings and watches. Notice how the red and blue areas on the old map hugged the coastline while the red and blue areas on the new map reach inland.

Both changes push the bottom layer, i.e. the cone, deeper into the background. It's like a shrink-flation ice cream cone that has a tiny bit of ice cream stuffed deep in its base.

***

How might one improve the cone map? I'd start by dismantling the layers. The three layers present answers to different problems, albeit connected.

Let's begin with the hurricane forecasting problem. We have the current location of the storm, and current measurements of wind speeds around its center. As a first requirement, a forecasting model predicts the path of the storm in the near future. At any time, the storm isn't a point in space but a "cloud" around a center. The path of the storm traces how that cloud will move, including any expansion or contraction of its radius.

That's saying a lot. To start with, a forecasting model issues the predicted average path -- the expected path of the storm's center. This path is (not competently) indicated by the black dots in the top layer of the cone map. These dots offer only a sampled view of the average path.

Not surprisingly, there is quite a bit of uncertainty about the future path of any storm. Many models simulate future worlds, generating many predictions of the average paths. The envelope of the most probable set of paths is the "cone". The expanding width of the cone over time reflects the higher uncertainty of our predictions further into the future. Confusingly, this cone expansion does not depict spatial expansion of either the storm's size or the potential areas that may suffer the greatest damage. Both of those tend to shrink as hurricanes move inland.

Nevertheless, the cone and the black dots are connected. The path drawn out by the black dots should be the average path of the center of the storm.

The forecasting model also generates estimates of wind speeds. Those are given as labels inside the black dots. The cone itself offers no information about wind speeds. The map portrays the uncertainty of the position of the storm's center but omits the uncertainty of the projected wind speeds.

The middle layer of colored patches also inform readers about model projections - but in an interpreted manner. The colors portray hurricane warnings and watches for specific areas, which are based on projected wind speeds from the same forecasting models described above. The colors represent NHC's interpretation of these model outputs. Each warning or watch simultaneously uses information on location, wind speed and time. The uncertainty of the projected values is suppressed.

I think it's better to use two focused maps instead of having one that captures a bit of this and a bit of that.

One map can present the interpreted data, and show the areas that have current warnings and watches. This map is about projected wind strength in the next 1-3 days. It isn't about the center of the storm, or its projected path. Uncertainty can be added by varying the tint of the colors, reflecting the confidence of the model's prediction.

Another map can show the projected path of the center of the storm, plus the cone of uncertainty around that expected path. I'd like to bring more attention to the times of forecasting, perhaps shading the cone day by day, if the underlying model has this level of precision.

***

Back in 2019, I wrote a pretty long post about these cone maps. Well worth revisiting today!

Redundancy is great

I have been watching some tennis recently, and noticed that some venues (or broadcasters) have adopted a more streamlined way of showing tiebreak results.

(This is an old example I found online. Can't seem to find more recent ones. Will take a screenshot next time I see this on my TV.)

For those not familiar with tennis scoring, the match is best-of-three sets (for Grand Slam men's tournaments, it's best-of-five sets); each set is first to six games, but if the scoreline reaches 5-5, a player must win two consecutive games to win the set at 7-5, or else, the scoreline reaches 6-6, and a tiebreak is played. The tiebreak is first to seven points, or if 6-6 is reached, it's first player to get two points clear. Thus, the possible tiebreak scores are 7-0, 7-1, ..., 7-5, 8-6, 9-7, etc.

A tiebreak score is usually represented in two parts, e.g., 7-6 (7-2).

At some point, some smart person discovered that the score 7-2 contains redundant information. In fact, it is sufficient to show just the score of the losing side in a tiebreak - because the winner's points can be inferred from it.

The rule can be stated as: if the displayed number is 5 or below, then the winner of the tiebreak scored exactly 7 points; and if the displayed number is 6 or above, then the winner scored two points more than that number.

For example, in the attached image, Djokovic won a tiebreak 7-6 (2) which means 7-6 (7-2) while Del Potro won a tiebreak 7-6 (6) which means 7-6 (8-6).

***

While this discovery satisfies my mathematical side - we always like to find the most concise way to do a proof or computation - it is bad for data communications!

It's just bad practice to make readers do calculations in their heads when the information can be displayed visually.

I found where I saw this single-digit display. It's on the official ATP Tour website.

***

Just for fun, if we applied the same principle to the display of the entire scoreline, we would arrive at something even more succinct :)

4-6, 7-6(6), 6-4 can simply be written as 4-, -6(6), -4

6-3, 7-6(4), 6-3 is -3, -6(4), -3

6-1, 6-4 is -1, -4

7-5, 4-6, 6-1 is -5, 4-, -1

The shortened display contains the minimal information needed to recover the long-form scoreline. But it fails at communications.

In this case, redundancy is great.

 

Speedometer charts: love or hate

Pie chart hate is tired. In this post, I explain my speedometer hate. (Also called gauges,  dials)

Next to pie charts, speedometers are perhaps the second most beloved chart species found on business dashboards. Here is a typical example:

 

For this post, I found one on Reuters about natural gas in Europe. (Thanks to long-time contributor Antonio R. for the tip.)

The reason for my dislike is the inefficiency of this chart form. In classic Tufte-speak, the speedometer chart has a very poor data-to-ink ratio. The entire chart above contains just one datum (73%). Most of the ink are spilled over non-data things.

This single number has a large entourage:

- the curved axis
- ticks on the axis
- labels on the scale
- the dial
- the color segments
- the reference level "EU target"

These are not mere decorations. Taking these elements away makes it harder to understand what's on the chart.

Here is the chart without the curved axis:

Here is the chart without axis labels:

Here is the chart without ticks:

When the tick labels are present, the chart still functions.

Here is the chart without the dial:

The datum is redundantly encoded in the color segments of the "axis".

Here is the chart without the dial or the color segments:

If you find yourself stealing a peek at the chart title below, you're not alone.

All versions except one increases our cognitive load. This means the entourage is largely necessary if one encodes the single number in a speedometer chart.

The problem with the entourage is that readers may resort to reading the text rather than the chart.

***

The following is a minimalist version of the Reuters chart:

I removed the axis labels and the color segments. The number 73% is shown using the dial angle.

The next chart adds back the secondary message about the EU target, as an axis label, and uses color segments to show the 73% number.

Like pie charts, there are limited situations in which speedometer charts are acceptable. But most of the ones we see out there are just not right.

***

One acceptable situation is to illustrate percentages or proportions, which is what the EU gas chart does. Of course, in that situation, one can alo use a pie chart without shame.

For illustrating proportions, I prefer to use a full semicircle, instead of the circular sector of arbitrary angle as Reuters did. The semicircle lends itself to easy marks of 25%, 50%, 75%, etc, eliminating the need to print those tick labels.

***

One use case to avoid is numeric data.

Take the regional sales chart pulled randomly from a Web search above:

These charts are completely useless without the axis labels.

Besides, because the span of the axis isn't 0% to 100%, every tick mark must be labelled with the numeric value. That's a lot of extra ink used to display a single value!

To explain or to eliminate, that is the question

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.

Surging gas prices

A reader finds this chart hard to parse:

The chart shows the trend in gas prices in New York in the past two years.

This is a case in which the simple line chart works very well.

I added annotations as the reasons behind the decline and rise in prices are reasonably clear. 

One should be careful when formatting dates. The legend of the original chart looks like this:

In the U.S., dates typically use a M/D/Y format. The above dates are ambiguous. "Aug 19" can be August 19th or August, xx19.

Simple charts are the hardest to do right

The CDC website has a variety of data graphics about many topics, one of which is U.S. vaccinations. I was looking for information about Covid-19 data broken down by age groups, and that's when I landed on these charts (link).

The left panel shows people with at least one dose, and the right panel shows those who are "fully vaccinated." This simple chart takes an unreasonable amount of time to comprehend.

***

The analyst introduces three metrics, all of which are described as "percentages". Upon reflection, they are proportions of the people in specific age ranges.

Readers are thus invited to compare these proportions. It's not clear, however, which comparisons are intended. The first item listed in the legend states "Percent among Persons who completed all recommended doses in last 14 days". For most readers, including me, this introduces an unexpected concept. The 14 days here do not refer to the (in)famous 14-day case-counting window but literally the most recent two weeks relative to when the chart was produced.

It would have been clearer if the concept of Proportions were introduced in the chart title or axis title, while the color legend explains the concept of the base population. From the lighter shade to the darker shade (of red and blue) to the gray color, the base population shifts from "Among Those Who Completed/Initiated Vaccinations Within Last 14 Days" to "Among Those Who Completed/Initiated Vaccinations Any Time" to "Among the U.S. Population (regardless of vaccination status)".

Also, a reverse order helps our comprehension. Each subsequent category is a subset of the one above. First, the whole population, then those who are fully vaccinated, and finally those who recently completed vaccinations.

The next hurdle concerns the Q corner of our Trifecta Checkup. The design leaves few hints as to what question(s) its creator intended to address. The age distribution of the U.S. population is useless unless it is compared to something.

One apparently informative comparison is the age distribution of those fully vaccinated versus the age distribution of all Americans. This is revealed by comparing the lengths of the dark blue bar and the gray bar. But is this comparison informative? It's telling me that people aged 50 to 64 account for ~25% of those who are fully vaccinated, and ~20% of all Americans. Because proportions necessarily add to 100%, this implies that other age groups have been less vaccinated. Duh! Isn't that the result of an age-based vaccination prioritization? During the first week of the vaccination campaign, one might expect close to 100% of all vaccinations to be in the highest age group while it was 0% for the other age groups.

This is a chart in search of a question. The 25% vs 20% comparison does not assist readers in making a judgement. Does this mean the vaccination campaign is working as expected, worse than expected or better than expected? The problem is the wrong baseline. The designer of this chart implies that the expected proportions should conform to the overall age distribution - but that clearly stands in the way of CDC's initial prioritization of higher-risk age groups.

***

In my version of the chart, I illustrate the proportion of people in each age group who have been fully vaccinated.

Among those fully vaccinated, some did it within the most recent two weeks:

***

Elsewhere on the CDC site, one learns that on these charts, "fully vaccinated" means one shot of J&J or 2 shots of Pfizer or Moderna, without dealing with the 14-day window or other complications. Why do we think different definitions are used in different analyses? Story-first thinking, as I have explained here. When it comes to telling the story about vaccinations, the story is about the number of shots in arms. They want as big a number as possible, and abandon any criterion that decreases the count. When it comes to reporting on vaccine effectiveness, they want as small a number of cases as possible.

 

 

 

 

 

Did prices go up or down? Depends on how one looks at the data

The U.S. media have been flooded with reports of runaway inflation recently, and it's refreshing to see a nice article in the Wall Street Journal that takes a second look at the data. Because as my readers know, raw data can be incredibly deceptive.

Inflation typically describes the change in price level relative to the prior year. The month-on-month change in price levels is a simple seasonal adjustment used to remove the effect of seasonality that masks the true change in price levels. (See this explainer of seasonal adjustment.)

As the pandemic enters the second year, this methodology is comparing 2021 price levels to pandemic-impacted price levels of 2020. This produces a very confusing picture. As the WSJ article explains, prices can be lower than they were in 2019 (pre-pandemic) and yet substantially higher than they were in 2020 (during the pandemic). This happens in industry sectors that were heavily affected by the economic shutdown, e.g. hotels, travel, entertainment.

Here is how they visualized this phenomenon. Amusingly, some algorithm estimated that it should take 5 minutes to read the entire article. It may take that much time to understand properly what this chart is showing.

Let me save you some time.

The chart shows monthly inflation rates of hotel price levels.

The pink horizontal stripes represent the official inflation numbers, which compare each month's hotel prices to those of a year prior. The most recent value for May of 2021 says hotel prices rose by 9% compared to May of 2020.

The blue horizontal stripes show an alternative calculation which compares each month's hotel prices to those of two years prior. Think of 2018-9 as "normal" years, pre-pandemic. Using this measure, we find that hotel prices for May of 2021 are about 4% lower than for May of 2019.

(This situation affects all of our economic statistics. We may see an expansion in employment levels from a year ago which still leaves us behind where we were before the pandemic.)

What confused me on the WSJ chart are the blocks of color. In a previous chart, the readers learn that solid colors mean inflation rose while diagonal lines mean inflation decreased. It turns out that these are month-over-month changes in inflation rates (notice that one end of the column for the previous month touches one end of the column of the next month).

The color patterns become the most dominant feature of this chart, and yet the month-over-month change in inflation rates isn't the crux of the story. The real star of the story should be the difference in inflation rates - for any given month - between two reference years.

***

In the following chart, I focus attention on the within-month, between-reference-years comparisons.

Because hotel prices dropped drastically during the pandemic, and have recovered quite well in recent months as the U.S. reopens the economy, the inflation rate of hotel prices is almost 10%. Nevertheless, the current price level is still 7% below the pre-pandemic level.