If you blink, you'd miss this axis trick

When I set out to write this post, I was intending to make a quick point about the following chart found in the current issue of Harvard Magazine (link):

This chart concerns the "tectonic shift" of undergraduates to STEM majors at the expense of humanities in the last 10 years.

I like the chart. The dot plot is great for showing this data. They placed the long text horizontally. The use of color is crucial, allowing us to visually separate the STEM majors from the humanities majors.

My intended post is to suggest dividing the chart into four horizontal slices, each showing one of the general fields. It's a small change that makes the chart even more readable. (It has the added benefit of not needing a legend box.)

***

Then, the axis announced itself.

I was baffled, then disgusted.

Here is a magnified view of the axis:

It's not a linear scale, as one would have expected. What kind of transformation did they use? It's baffling.

Notice the following features of this transformed scale:

• It can't be a log scale because many of the growth values are negative.
• The interval for 0%-25% is longer than for 25%-50%. The interval for 0%-50% is also longer than for 50%-100%. On the positive side, the larger values are pulled in and the smaller values are pushed out.
• The interval for -20%-0% is the same length as that for 0%-25%. So, the transformation is not symmetric around 0

I have no idea what transformation was applied. I took the growth values, measured the locations of the dots, and asked Excel to fit a polynomial function, and it gave me a quadratic fit, R square > 99%.

This formula fits the values within the range extremely well. I hope this isn't the actual transformation. That would be disgusting. Regardless, they ought to have advised readers of their unusual scale.

***

Without having the fitted formula, there is no way to retrieve the actual growth values except for those that happen to fall on the vertical gridlines. Using the inverse of the quadratic formula, I deduced what the actual values were. The hardest one is for Computer Science, since the dot sits to the right of the last gridline. I checked that value against IPEDS data.

The growth values are not extreme, falling between -50% and 125%. There is nothing to be gained by transforming the scale.

The following chart undoes the transformation, and groups the majors by field as indicated above:

***

Yesterday, I published a version of this post at Andrew's blog. Several readers there figured out that the scale is the log of the relative ratio of the number of degrees granted. In the above notation, it is log10(100%+x), where x is the percent change in number of degrees between 2011 and 2021.

Here is a side-by-side view of the two scales:

The chart on the right spreads the negative growth values further apart while slightly compressing the large positive values. I still don't think there is much benefit to transforming this set of data.

 

P.S. [1/31/2023]

(1) A reader on Andrew's blog asked what's wrong with using the log relative ratio scale. What's wrong is exactly what this post is about. For any non-linear scale, the reader can't make out the values between gridlines. In the original chart, there are four points that exist between 0% and 25%. What values are those? That chart is even harder because now that we know what the transform is, we'd need to first think in terms of relative ratios, so 1.25 instead of 25%, then think in terms of log, if we want to know what those values are.

(2) The log scale used for change values is often said to have the advantage that equal distances on either side represent counterbalancing values. For example, (1.5) (0.66) = (3/2) (2/3)  = 1. But this is a very specific scenario that doesn't actually apply to our dataset.  Consider these scenarios:

History: # degrees went from 1000 to 666 i.e. Relative ratio = 2/3
Psychology: # degrees went from 2000 to 3000 i.e. Relative ratio = 3/2

The # of History degrees dropped by 334 while the number of Psychology degrees grew by 1000 (Psychology I think is the more popular major)

History: # degrees went from 1000 to 666 i.e. Relative ratio = 2/3
Psychology: from 1000 to 1500, i.e. Relative ratio = 3/2

The # of History degrees dropped by 334 while # of Psychology degrees grew by 500
(Assume same starting values)

History: # degrees went from 1000 to 666 i.e. Relative ratio = 2/3
Psychology: from 666 to 666*3/2 = 999 i.e. Relative ratio = 3/2

The # of History degrees dropped by 334 while # of Psychology degrees grew by 333
(Assume Psychology's starting value to be History's ending value)

Psychology: # degrees went from 1000 to 1500 i.e. Relative ratio = 3/2
History: # degrees went from 1500 to 1000 i.e. Relative ratio = 2/3

The # of Psychology degrees grew by 500 while the # of History degrees dropped by 500
(Assume History's starting value to be Psychology's ending value)

 

 

Visual cues affect how data are perceived

Here's a recent NYT graphic showing California's water situation at different time scales (link to article).

It's a small multiples display, showing the spatial distribution of the precipitation amounts in California. The two panels show, respectively, the short-term view (past month) and the longer-term view (3 years). Precipitation is measured in relative terms,  so what is plotted is the relative ratio of precipitation in the reference period, with 100 being the 30-year average.

Green is much wetter than average while brown is much drier than average.

The key to making this chart work is a common color scheme across the two panels.

Also, the placement of major cities provides anchor points for our eyes to move back and forth between the two panels.

***

The NYT graphic is technically well executed. I'm a bit unhappy with the headline: "Recent rains haven't erased California's long-term drought".

At the surface, the conclusion seems sensible. Look, there is a lot of green, even deep green, on the left panel, which means the state got lots more rain than usual in the past month. Now, on the right panel, we find patches of brown, and very little green.

But pay attention to the scale. The light brown color, which covers the largest area, has value 70 to 90, thus, these regions have gotten 10-30% less precipitation than average in the past three years relative to the 30-year average.

Here's the question: what does it mean by "erasing California's long-term drought"? Does the 3-year average have to equal or exceed the 30-year average? Why should that be the case?

If we took all 3-year windows within those 30 years, we're definitely not going to find that each such 3-year average falls at or above the 30-year average. To illustrate this, I pulled annual rainfall data for San Francisco. Here is a histogram of 3-year averages for the 30-year period 1991-2020.

For example, the first value is the average rainfall for years 1989, 1990 and 1991, the next value is the average of 1990, 1991, and 1992, and so on. Each value is a relative value relative to the overall average in the 30-year window. There are two more values beyond 2020 that is not shown in the histogram. These are 57%, and 61%, so against the 30-year average, those two 3-year averages were drier than usual.

The above shows the underlying variability of the 3-year averages inside the reference time window. We have to first define "normal", and that might be a value between 70% and 130%.

In the same way, we can establish the "normal" range for the entire state of California. If it's also 70% to 130%, then the last 3 years as shown in the map above should be considered normal.

 

 

Where have the graduates gone?

Someone submitted this chart on Twitter as an example of good dataviz.

The chart shows the surprising leverage colleges have on where students live after graduation.

The primary virtue of this chart is conservation of space. If our main line of inquiry is the destination states of college graduations - by state, then it's hard to beat this chart's efficiency at delivering this information. For each state, it's easy to see what proportion of graduates leave the state after graduation, and then within those who leave, the reader can learn which are the most popular destination states, and their relative importance.

The colors link the most popular destination states (e.g. Texas in orange) but they are not enough because the designer uses state labels also. A next set of states are labeled without being differentiated by color. In particular, New York and Massachusetts share shades of blue, which also is the dominant color on the left side.

***

The following is a draft of a concept I have in my head.

I imagine this to be a tile map. The underlying data are not public so I just copied down a bunch of interesting states. This view brings out the spatial information, as we expect graduates are moving to neighboring states (or the states with big cities).

The students in the Western states are more likely to stay in their own state, and if they move, they stay in the West Coast. The graduates in the Eastern states also tend to stay nearby, except for California.

I decided to use groups of color - blue for East, green for South, red for West. Color is a powerful device, if used well. If the reader wants to know which states send graduates to New York, I'm hoping the reader will see the chart this way:

 

Trying too hard

Today, I return to the life expectancy graphic that Antonio submitted. In a previous post, I looked at the bumps chart. The centerpiece of that graphic is the following complicated bar chart.

Let's start with the dual axes. On the left, age, and on the right, year of birth. I actually like this type of dual axes. The two axes present two versions of the same scale so the dual axes exist without distortion. It just allows the reader to pick which scale they want to use.

It baffles me that the range of each bar runs from 2.5 years to 7.5 years or 7.5 years to 2.5 years, with 5 or 10 years situated in the middle of each bar.

Reading the rest of the chart is like unentangling some balled up wires. The author has created a statistical model that attributes cause of death to male life expectancy in such a way that you can take the difference in life expectancy between two time points, and do a kind of waterfall analysis in which each cause of death either adds to or subtracts from the prior life expectancy, with the sum of these additions and substractions leading to the end-of-period life expectancy.

The model is complicated enough, and the chart doesn't make it any easier.

The bars are rooted at the zero value. The horizontal axis plots addition or substraction to life expectancy, thus zero represents no change during the period. Zero does not mean the cause of death (e.g. cancer) does not contribute to life expectancy; it just means the contribution remains the same.

The changes to life expectancy are shown in units of months. I'd prefer to see units of years because life expectancy is almost always given in years. Using years turn 2.5 months into 0.2 years which is a fraction, but it allows me to see the impact on the reported life expectancy without having to do a month-to-year conversion.

The chart highlights seven causes of death with seven different colors, plus gray for others.

What really does a number on readers is the shading, which adds another layer on top of the hues. Each color comes in one of two shading, referencing two periods of time. The unshaded bar segments concern changes between 2010 and "2019" while the shaded segments concern changes between "2019" and 2020. The two periods are chosen to highlight the impact of COVID-19 (the red-orange color), which did not exist before "2019".

Let's zoom in on one of the rows of data - the 72.5 to 77.5 age group.

COVID-19 (red-orange) has a negative impact on life expectancy and that's the easy one to see. That's because COVID-19's contribution as a cause of death is exactly zero prior to "2019". Thus, the change in life expectancy is a change from zero. This is not how we can interpret any of the other colors.

Next, we look at cancer (blue). Since this bar segment sits on the right side of zero, cancer has contributed positively to change in life expectancy between 2010 and 2020. Practically, that means proportionally fewer people have died from cancer. Since the lengths of these bar segments correspond to the relative value, not absolute value, of life expectancy, longer bars do not necessarily indicate more numerous deaths.

Now the blue segment is actually divided into two parts, the shaded and not shaded. The not-shaded part is for the period "2019" to 2020 in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The shaded part is for the period 2010 to "2019". It is a much wider span but it also contains 9 years of changes versus "1 year" so it's hard to tell if the single-year change is significantly different from the average single-year change of the past 9 years. (I'm using these quotes because I don't know whether they split the year 2019 in the middle since COVID-19 didn't show up till the end of that year.)

Next, we look at the yellow-brown color correponding to CVD. The key feature is that this block is split into two parts, one positive, one negative. Prior to "2019", CVD has been contributing positively to life expectancy changes while after "2019", it has contributed negatively. This observation raises some questions: why would CVD behave differently with the arrival of the pandemic? Are there data problems?

***

A small multiples design - splitting the period into two charts - may help here. To make those two charts comparable, I'd suggest annualizing the data so that the 9-year numbers represent the average annual values instead of the cumulative values.

 

 

Here's a radar chart that works, sort of

In the same Reuters article that featured the speedometer chart which I discussed in this blog post (link), the author also deployed a small multiples of radar charts.

These radar charts are supposed to illustrate the article's theme that "European countries are racing to fill natural gas storage sites ahead of winter."

Here's the aggregate chart that shows all countries:

In general, I am not a fan of radar charts. When I first looked at this chart, I also disliked it. But keep reading because I eventually decided that this usage is an exception. One just needs to figure out how to read it.

One reason why I dislike radar charts is that they always come with a lot of non-data-ink baggage. We notice that the months of the year are plotted in a circle starting at the top. They marked off the start of the war on Feb 24, 2022 in red. Then, they place the dotted circle, which represents the 80% target gas storage amount.

The trick is to avoid interpreting the areas, or the shapes of the blue and gray patches. I know, they look cool and grab our attention but in the context of conveying data, they are meaningless.

Instead of areas, focus on the boundaries of those patches. Don't follow one boundary around the circle. Pick a point in time, corresponding to a line between the center of the circle and the outermost circle, and look at the gap between the two lines. In the diagram shown right, I marked off the two relevant points on the day of the start of the war.

From this, we observe that across Europe, the gas storage was far less than the 80% target (recently set).

By comparing two other points (the blue and gray boundaries), we see that during February, gas storage is at a seasonal low, and in 2022, it is on the low side of the 5-year average. 

However, the visual does not match well with the theme of the article! While the gap between the blue and gray boundaries decreased since the start of the war, the blue boundary does not exceed the historical average, and does not get close to 80% until August, a month in which gas storage reaches 80% in a typical year.

This is example of a chart in which there is a misalignment between the Q and the V corners of the Trifecta Checkup (link).

The question/message is that Europeans are reacting to the war by increasing their gas storage beyond normal. The visual actually says that they are increasing the gas storage as per normal.

***

As I noted before, when read in a particular way, these radar charts serve their purpose, which is more than can be said for most radar charts.

The designer made several wise choices:

Instead of drawing one ring for each year of data, the designer averaged the past 5 years and turned that into one single ring (patch). You can imagine what this radar chart would look like if the prior data were not averaged: hoola hoop mania!

Simplifying the data in this way also makes the small multiples work. The designer uses the aggregate chart as a legend/how to read this. And in a further section below, the designer plots individual countries, without the non-data-ink baggage:

Thanks againto longtime reader Antonio R. who submitted this chart.

Happy Labor Day weekend for those in the U.S.!

 

 

 

Another reminder that aggregate trends hide information

The last time I looked at the U.S. employment situation, it was during the pandemic. The data revealed the deep flaws of the so-called "not in labor force" classification. This classification is used to dehumanize unemployed people who are declared "not in labor force," in which case they are neither employed nor unemployed -- just not counted at all in the official unemployment (or employment) statistics.

The reason given for such a designation was that some people just have no interest in working, or even looking for a job. Now they are not merely discouraged - as there is a category of those people. In theory, these people haven't been looking for a job for so long that they are no longer visible to the bean counters at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What happened when the pandemic precipitated a shutdown in many major cities across America? The number of "not in labor force" shot up instantly, literally within a few weeks. That makes a mockery of the reason for such a designation. See this post for more.

***

The data we saw last time was up to April, 2020. That's more than two years old.

So I have updated the charts to show what has happened in the last couple of years.

Here is the overall picture.

In this new version, I centered the chart at the 1990 data. The chart features two key drivers of the headline unemployment rate - the proportion of people designated "invisible", and the proportion of those who are considered "employed" who are "part-time" workers.

The last two recessions have caused structural changes to the labor market. From 1990 to late 2000s, which included the dot-com bust, these two metrics circulated within a small area of the chart. The Great Recession of late 2000s led to a huge jump in the proportion called "invisible". It also pushed the proportion of part-timers to all0time highs. The proportion of part-timers has fallen although it is hard to interpret from this chart alone - because if the newly invisible were previously part-time employed, then the same cause can be responsible for either trend.

Readers of Numbersense (link) might be reminded of a trick used by school deans to pump up their US News rankings. Some schools accept lots of transfer students. This subpopulation is invisible to the US News statisticians since they do not factor into the rankings. The recent scandal at Columbia University also involves reclassifying students (see this post).

Zooming in on the last two years. It appears that the pandemic-related unemployment situation has reversed.

***

Let's split the data by gender.

American men have been stuck in a negative spiral since the 1990s. With each recession, a higher proportion of men are designated BLS invisibles.

In the grid system set up in this scatter plot, the top right corner is the worse of all worlds - the work force has shrunken and there are more part-timers among those counted as employed. The U.S. men are not exiting this quadrant any time soon.

***
What about the women?

If we compare 1990 with 2022, the story is not bad. The female work force is gradually reaching the same scale as in 1990 while the proportion of part-time workers have declined.

However, celebrating the above is to ignore the tremendous gains American women made in the 1990s and 2000s. In 1990, only 58% of women are considered part of the work force - the other 42% are not working but they are not counted as unemployed. By 2000, the female work force has expanded to include about 60% with similar proportions counted as part-time employed as in 1990. That's great news.

The Great Recession of the late 2000s changed that picture. Just like men, many women became invisible to BLS. The invisible proportion reached 44% in 2015 and have not returned to anywhere near the 2000 level. Fewer women are counted as part-time employed; as I said above, it's hard to tell whether this is because the women exiting the work force previously worked part-time.

***

The color of the dots in all charts are determined by the headline unemployment number. Blue represents low unemployment. During the 1990-2022 period, there are three moments in which unemployment is reported as 4 percent or lower. These charts are intended to show that an aggregate statistic hides a lot of information. The three times at which unemployment rate reached historic lows represent three very different situations, if one were to consider the sizes of the work force and the number of part-time workers.

 

P.S. [8-15-2022] Some more background about the visualization can be found in prior posts on the blog: here is the introduction, and here's one that breaks it down by race. Chapter 6 of Numbersense (link) gets into the details of how unemployment rate is computed, and the implications of the choices BLS made.

P.S. [8-16-2022] Corrected the axis title on the charts (see comment below). Also, added source of data label.

Four numbers, not as easy as it seems

Longtime reader Aleksander B. wasn't convinced by the following chart shown at the bottom of AFP's infographic about gun control.

He said:

Finally I was able to figure who got some support from NRA. But as a non-US citizen it was hard to get why 86% of republican tag points to huge red part. Then I figured out that smaller value of alpha channel codes the rest of republicans. I think this could be presented in some better way (pie charts are bad in presenting percentages of some subparts of the same pie chart - but adding a tag for 86% while skipping the tag for remaining 14% is cruel).

It's an example of how a simple chart with just four numbers is so hard to understand.

***

Here is a different view of the same data, using a similar structure as the form I chose for this recent chart on Swedish trade balance (link).

Superb tile map offering multiple avenues for exploration

Here's a beauty by WSJ Graphics:

The article is here.

This data graphic illustrates the power of the visual medium. The underlying dataset is complex: power production by type of source by state by month by year. That's more than 90,000 numbers. They all reside on this graphic.

Readers amazingly make sense of all these numbers without much effort.

It starts with the summary chart on top.

The designer made decisions. The data are presented in relative terms, as proportion of total power production. Only the first and last years are labeled, thus drawing our attention to the long-term trend. The order of the color blocks is carefully selected so that the cleaner sources are listed at the top and the dirtier sources at the bottom. The order of the legend labels mirrors the color blocks in the area chart.

It takes only a few seconds to learn that U.S. power production has largely shifted away from coal with most of it substituted by natural gas. Other than wind, the green sources of power have not gained much ground during these years - in a relative sense.

This summary chart serves as a reading guide for the rest of the chart, which is a tile map of all fifty states. Embedded in the tile map is a small-multiples arrangement.

***

The map offers multiple avenues for exploration.

Some readers may look at specific states. For example, California.

Currently, about half of the power production in California come from natural gas. Notably, there is no coal at all in any of these years. In addition to wind, solar energy has also gained. All of these insights come without the need for any labels or gridlines!

Browsing around California, readers find different patterns in other Western states like Oregon and Washington.

Hydroelectric energy is the dominant source in those two states, with wind gradually taking share.

At this point, readers realize that the summary chart up top hides remarkable state-level variations.

***

There are other paths through the map.

Some readers may scan the whole map, seeking patterns that pop out.

One such pattern is the cluster of states that use coal. In most of these states, the proportion of coal has declined.

Yet another path exists for those interested in specific sources of power.

For example, the trend in nuclear power usage is easily followed by tracking the purple. South Carolina, Illinois and New Hampshire are three states that rely on nuclear for more than half of its power.

I wonder what happened in Vermont about 8 years ago.

The chart says they renounced nuclear energy. Here is some history. This one-time event caused a disruption in the time series, unique on the entire map.

***

This work is wonderful. Enjoy it!

There's more to the composite rating chart

In my previous post, I sketched a set of charts to illustrate composite ratings of maps platforms (e.g. Google Maps, TomTom). Here is the sketch again:

For those readers who are interested in understanding these ratings beyond the obvious, this set of charts has more to offer.

Take a look first at the two charts on the left hand side.

Compare the patterns of dots between the two charts. You should note that the Maps Data ratings (blue dots) are less variable than the Platform ratings (green dots).

For Maps Data, the range is from 30 to 85 (out of 110) but the majority of the dots line up around 50.

For Platform, the range is 20 to 70 (out of 90) and the dots are quite spread out within this range.

This means competitiveness based on Platform is more differentiating among these brands than is Maps Data.

In the previous post, I already noted that the other key insight is that the Maps Data values hang quite closely to the overall average ratings while the Platform values are much less correlated.

***

Another informative observation can be found in the bottom row of charts.

The yellow dots (Developer Ecosystem) are mostly to the right of the overall ratings, meaning most of these brands were given scores on Developer Ecosystem that are higher than their average scores.

That is not the case with the green dots (Platform). For this sub-rating, most of the brands score lower than they do in the overall rating.

***

None of these insights are readily learned from the stacked column chart. A key skill in data visualization is whether one can pile on insights without overloading the chart.

 

 

Visualizing composite ratings

A twitter reader submitted the following chart from Autoevolution (link):

This is not a successful chart for the simple reason that readers want to look away from it. It's too busy. There is so much going on that one doesn't know where to look.

The underlying dataset is quite common in the marketing world. Through surveys, people are asked to rate some product along a number of dimensions (here, seven). Each dimension has a weight, and combined, the weighted sum becomes a composite ranking (shown here in gray).

Nothing in the chart stands out as particularly offensive even though the overall effect is repelling. Adding the overall rating on top of each column is not the best idea as it distorts the perception of the column heights. But with all these ingredients, the food comes out bland.

***

The key is editing. Find the stories you want to tell, and then deconstruct the chart to showcase them.

I start with a simple way to show the composite ranking, without any fuss:

[Since these are mockups, I have copied all of the data, just the top 11 items.]

Then, I want to know if individual products have particular strengths or weaknesses along specific dimensions. In a ranking like this, one should expect that some component ratings correlate highly with the overall rating while other components deviate from the overall average.

An example of correlated ratings is the Customers dimension.

The general pattern of the red dots clings closely to that of the gray bars. The gray bars are the overall composite ratings (re-scaled to the rating range for the Customers dimension). This dimension does not tell us more than what we know from the composite rating.

By contrast, the Developers Ecosystem dimension provides additional information.

Esri, AzureMaps and Mapbox performed much better on this dimension than on the average dimension. 

***

The following construction puts everything together in one package: