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.

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.

 

 

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.

The time has arrived for cumulative charts

Long-time reader Scott S. asked me about this Washington Post chart that shows the disappearance of pediatric flu deaths in the U.S. this season:

The dataset behind this chart is highly favorable to the designer, because the signal in the data is so strong. This is a good chart. The key point is shown clearly right at the top, with an informative title. Gridlines are very restrained. I'd draw attention to the horizontal axis. The master stroke here is omitting the week labels, which are likely confusing to all but the people familiar with this dataset.

Scott suggested using a line chart. I agree. And especially if we plot cumulative counts, rather than weekly deaths. Here's a quick sketch of such a chart:

(On second thought, I'd remove the week numbers from the horizontal axis, and just go with the month labels. The Washington Post designer is right in realizing that those week numbers are meaningless to most readers.)

The vaccine trials have brought this cumulative count chart form to the mainstream. For anyone who have seen the vaccine efficacy charts, the interpretation of the panel of line charts should come naturally.

Instead of four plots, I prefer one plot with four superimposed lines. Like this:

 

 

 

Vaccine researchers discard the start-at-zero rule

I struggled to decide on which blog to put this post. The reality is it bridges the graphical and analytical sides of me. But I ultimately placed it on the dataviz blog because that's where today's story starts.

Data visualization has few set-in-stone rules. If pressed for one, I'd likely cite the "start-at-zero" rule, which has featured regularly on Junk Charts (here, here, and here, for example). This rule only applies to a bar chart, where the heights (and thus, areas) of the bars should encode the data.

Here is a stacked column chart that earns boos from us:

I made it so I'm downvoting myself. What's wrong with this chart? The vertical axis starts at 42 instead of zero. I've cropped out exactly 42 units from each column. Therefore, the column areas are no longer proportional to the ratio of the data. Forty-two is 84% of the column A while it is 19% of column B. By shifting the x-axis, I've made column B dwarf column A. For comparison, I added a second chart that has the x-axis start at zero.

On the right side, Column B is 22 times the height of column A. On the left side, it is 4 times as high. Both are really the same chart, except one has its legs chopped off.

***

Now, let me reveal the data behind the above chart. It is a re-imagination of the famous cumulative case curve from the Pfizer vaccine trial.

I transferred the data to a stacked column chart. Each column block shows the incremental cases observed in a given week of the trial. All the blocks stacked together rise to the total number of cases observed by the time the interim analysis was presented to the FDA.

Observe that in the cumulative cases chart, the count starts at zero on Day 0 (first dose). This means the chart corresponds to the good stacked column chart, with the x-axis starting from zero on Day 0.

The Pfizer chart above is, however, disconnected from the oft-chanted 95% vaccine efficacy number. You can't find this number on there. Yes, everyone has been lying to you. In a previous post, I did the math, and if you trace the vaccine efficacy throughout the trial, you end up at about 80% toward the right, not 95%.

How can they conclude VE is 95% but show a chart that never reaches that level? The chart was created for a "secondary" analysis included in the report for completeness. The FDA and researchers have long ago decided, before the trials started enrolling people, that they don't care about the cumulative case curve starting on Day 0. The "primary" analysis counts cases starting 7 days after the second shot, which means Day 29.

The first week that concerns the FDA is Days 29-35 (for Pfizer's vaccine). The vaccine arm saw 41 cases in the first 28 days of the trial. In effect, the experts chop the knees off the column chart. When they talk about 95% VE, they are looking at the column chart with the axis starting at 42.

Yes, that deserves a boo.

***

It's actually even worse than that, if you could believe it.

The most commonly cited excuse for the knee-chop is that any vaccine is expected to be useless in the first X days (X being determined after the trial ends when they analyze the data). A recently published "real world" analysis of the situation in Israel contains a lengthy defense of this tactic, in which they state:

Strictly speaking, the vaccine effectiveness based on this risk ratio overestimates the overall vaccine effectiveness in our study because it does not include the early follow-up period during which the vaccine has no detectable effect (and thus during which the ratio is 1). [Appendix, Supplement 4]

Assuming VE = 0 prior to day X is equivalent to stipulating that the number of cases found in the vaccine arm is the same (within margin of error) as the number of cases in the placebo arm during the first X days.

That assumption is refuted by the Pfizer trial (and every other trial that has results so far.)

The Pfizer/Biontech vaccine was not useless during the first week. It's not 95% efficacious, more like 16%. In the second week, it improves to 33%, and so on. (See the VE curve I plotted above for the Pfizer trial.)

What happened was all the weeks before which the VE has not plateaued were dropped.

***

So I was simplifying the picture by chopping same-size blocks from both columns in the stacked column chart. Contrary to the no-effect assumption, the blocks at the bottom of each column are of different sizes. Much more was chopped from the placebo arm than from the vaccine arm.

You'd think that would unjustifiably favor the placebo. Not true! As almost all the cases on the vaccine arm were removed, the remaining cases on the placebo arm are now many multiples of those on the vaccine arm.

The following shows what the VE would have been reported if they had started counting cases from day X. The first chart counts all cases from first shot. The second chart removes the first two weeks of cases, corresponding to the analysis that other pharmas have done, namely, evaluate efficacy from 14 days after the first dose. The third chart removes even more cases, and represents what happens if the analysis is conducted from second dose. The fourth chart is the official Pfizer analysis, which began days after the second shot. Finally, the fifth chart shows analysis begining from 14 days after the second shot, the window selected by Moderna and Astrazeneca.

The premise that any vaccine is completely useless for a period after administration is refuted by the actual data. By starting analysis windows at some arbitrary time, the researchers make it unnecessarily difficult to compare trials. Selecting the time of analysis based on the results of a single trial is the kind of post-hoc analysis that statisticians have long warned leads to over-estimation. It's equivalent to making the vertical axis of a column chart start above zero in order to exaggerate the relative heights of the columns.

 

P.S. [3/1/2021] See comment below. I'm not suggesting vaccines are useless. They are still a miracle of science. I believe the desire to report a 90% VE number is counterproductive. I don't understand why a 70% or 80% effective vaccine is shameful. I really don't.

Same data + same chart form = same story. Maybe.

We love charts that tell stories.

Some people believe that if they situate the data in the right chart form, the stories reveal themselves.

Some people believe for a given dataset, there exists a best chart form that brings out the story.

An implication of these beliefs is that the story is immutable, given the dataset and the chart form.

If you use the Trifecta Checkup, you already know I don't subscribe to those ideas. That's why the Trifecta has three legs, the third is the question - which is related to the message or the story.

***

I came across the following chart by Statista, illustrating the growth in Covid-19 cases from the start of the pandemic to this month. The underlying data are collected by WHO and cover the entire globe. The data are grouped by regions.

The story of this chart appears to be that the world moves in lock step, with each region behaving more or less the same.

If you visit the WHO site, they show a similar chart:

On this chart, the regions at the bottom of the graph (esp. Southeast Asia in purple) clearly do not follow the same time patterns as Americas (orange) or Europe (green).

What we're witnessing is: same data, same chart form, different stories.

This is a feature, not a bug, of the stacked area chart. The story is driven largely by the order in which the pieces are stacked. In the Statista chart, the largest pieces are placed at the bottom while for WHO, the order is exactly reversed.

(There are minor differences which do not affect my argument. The WHO chart omits the "Other" category which accounts for very little. Also, the Statista chart shows the smoothed data using 7-day averaging.)

In this example, the order chosen by WHO preserves the story while the order chosen by Statista wipes it out.

***

What might be the underlying question of someone who makes this graph? Perhaps it is to identify the relative prevalence of Covid-19 in different regions at different stages of the pandemic.

Emphasis on the word "relative". Instead of plotting absolute number of cases, I consider plotting relative number of cases, that is to say, the proportion of cases in each region at given times.

This leads to a stacked area percentage chart.

In this side-by-side view, you see that this form is not affected by flipping the order of the regions. Both charts say the same thing: that there were two waves in Europe and the Americas that dwarfed all other regions.

 

 

Making graphics last over time

Yesterday, I analyzed the data visualization by the White House showing the progress of U.S. Covid-19 vaccinations. Here is the chart.

John who tweeted this at me, saying "please get a better data viz".

I'm happy to work with them or the CDC on better dataviz. Here's an example of what I do.

Obviously, I'm using made-up data here and this is a sketch. I want to design a chart that can be updated continuously, as data accumulate. That's one of the shortcomings of that bubble format they used.

In earlier months, the chart can be clipped to just the lower left corner.

Illustrating differential growth rates

Reader Mirko was concerned about a video published in Germany that shows why the new coronavirus variant is dangerous. He helpfully provided a summary of the transcript:

The South African and the British mutations of the SARS-COV-2 virus are spreading faster than the original virus. On average, one infected person infects more people than before. Researchers believe the new variant is 50 to 70 % more transmissible.

Here are two key moments in the video:

This seems to be saying the original virus (left side) replicates 3 times inside the infected person while the new variant (right side) replicates 19 times. So we have a roughly 6-fold jump in viral replication.

Later in the video, it appears that every replicate of the old virus finds a new victim while the 19 replicates of the new variant land on 13 new people, meaning 6 replicates didn't find a host.

As Mirko pointed out, the visual appears to have run away from the data. (In our Trifecta Checkup, we have a problem with the arrow between the D and the V corners. What the visual is saying is not aligned with what the data are saying.)

***

It turns out that the scientists have been very confusing when talking about the infectiousness of this new variant. The most quoted line is that the British variant is "50 to 70 percent more transmissible". At first, I thought this is a comment on the famous "R number". Since the R number around December was roughly 1 in the U.K, the new variant might bring the R number up to 1.7.

However, that is not the case. From this article, it appears that being 5o to 70 percent more transmissible means R goes up from 1 to 1.4. R is interpreted as the average number of people infected by one infected person.

Mirko wonders if there is a better way to illustrate this. I'm sure there are many better ways. Here's one I whipped up:

The left side is for the 40% higher R number. Both sides start at the center with 10 infected people. At each time step, if R=1 (right side), each of the 10 people infects 10 others, so the total infections increase by 10 per time step. It's immediately obvious that a 40% higher R is very serious indeed. Starting with 10 infected people, in 10 steps, the total number of infections is almost 1,000, almost 10 times higher than when R is 1.

The lines of the graphs simulate the transmission chains. These are "average" transmission chains since R is an average number.

 

P.S. [1/29/2021: Added the missing link to the article in which it is reported that 50-70 percent more transmissible implies R increasing by 40%.]

 

 

Reading an infographic about our climate crisis

Let's explore an infographic by SCMP, which draws attention to the alarming temperature recorded at Verkhoyansk in Russia on June 20, 2020. The original work was on the back page of the printed newspaper, referred to in this tweet.

This view of the globe brings out the two key pieces of evidence presented in the infographic: the rise in temperature in unexpected places, and the shrinkage of the Arctic ice.

A notable design decision is to omit the color scale. On inspection, the scale is present - it was sewn into the graphic.

I applaud this decision as it does not take the reader's eyes away from the graphic. Some information is lost as the scale isn't presented in full details but I doubt many readers need those details.

A key takeaway is that the temperature in Verkhoyansk, which is on the edge of the Arctic Circle, was the same as in New Delhi in India on that day. We can see how the red was encroaching upon the Arctic Circle.

***

Next, the rapid shrinkage of the Arctic ice is presented in two ways. First, a series of maps.

The annotations are pared to the minimum. The presentation is simple enough such that we can visually judge that the amount of ice cover has roughly halved from 1980 to 2009.

A numerical measure of the drop is provided on the side.

Then, a line chart reinforces this message.

The line chart emphasizes change over time while the series of maps reveals change over space.

This chart suggests that the year 2020 may break the record for the smallest ice cover since 1980. The maps of Australia and India provide context to interpret the size of the Arctic ice cover.

I'd suggest reversing the pink and black colors so as to refer back to the blue and pink lines in the globe above.

***

The final chart shows the average temperature worldwide and in the Arctic, relative to a reference period (1981-2000).

This one is tough. It looks like an area chart but it should be read as a line chart. The darker line is the anomaly of Arctic average temperature while the lighter line is the anomaly of the global average temperature. The two series are synced except for a brief period around 1940. Since 2000, the temperatures have been dramatically rising above that of the reference period.

If this is a stacked area chart, then we'd interpret the two data series as summable, with the sum of the data series signifying something interesting. For example, the market shares of different web browsers sum to the total size of the market.

But the chart above should not be read as a stacked area chart because the outside envelope isn't the sum of the two anomalies. The problem is revealed if we try to articulate what the color shades mean.

On the far right, it seems like the dark shade is paired with the lighter line and represents global positive anomalies while the lighter shade shows Arctic's anomalies in excess of global. This interpretation only works if the Arctic line always sits above the global line. This pattern is broken in the late 1990s.

Around 1999, the Arctic's anomaly is negative while the global anomaly is positive. Here, the global anomaly gets the lighter shade while the Arctic one is blue.

One possible fix is to encode the size of the anomaly into the color of the line. The further away from zero, the darker the red/blue color.