Comments on: Stat Charts Get a New York Times Redesign http://flowingdata.com/2009/12/03/stat-charts-get-a-new-york-times-redesign/ Strength in Numbers Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:48:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: 自私:展示权威 « Ironic Paradox http://flowingdata.com/2009/12/03/stat-charts-get-a-new-york-times-redesign/#comment-37512 自私:展示权威 « Ironic Paradox Sat, 26 Dec 2009 00:36:02 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=4055#comment-37512 [...] been ranting to a couple of friends about how selfish Americans are. Looks like selfishness is not Western after all: 自私是全世界的. So much for [...] [...] been ranting to a couple of friends about how selfish Americans are. Looks like selfishness is not Western after all: 自私是全世界的. So much for [...]

]]> By: xmas presents http://flowingdata.com/2009/12/03/stat-charts-get-a-new-york-times-redesign/#comment-36775 xmas presents Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:56:23 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=4055#comment-36775 Thanks a lot for this post. This is very informative article.I was wondering this stuff only.Thanks for such a great post.It is very useful for me.I would like to know more in this topic.Hope for know more in it. Thanks. Thanks a lot for this post. This is very informative article.I was wondering this stuff only.Thanks for such a great post.It is very useful for me.I would like to know more in this topic.Hope for know more in it.
Thanks.

]]> By: dougbelshaw.com/blog - Education, technology & tangential thinking. http://flowingdata.com/2009/12/03/stat-charts-get-a-new-york-times-redesign/#comment-36718 dougbelshaw.com/blog - Education, technology & tangential thinking. Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:04:10 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=4055#comment-36718 [...] by posts at FlowingData & information [...] [...] by posts at FlowingData & information [...]

]]> By: Nathan Yau http://flowingdata.com/2009/12/03/stat-charts-get-a-new-york-times-redesign/#comment-36386 Nathan Yau Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:38:30 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=4055#comment-36386 Another thing to keep in mind: this was for an op-ed. The flavor is usually a little different from traditional NYT stuff. Another thing to keep in mind: this was for an op-ed. The flavor is usually a little different from traditional NYT stuff.

]]> By: Pete http://flowingdata.com/2009/12/03/stat-charts-get-a-new-york-times-redesign/#comment-36382 Pete Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:59:29 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=4055#comment-36382 I agree. The NYT version of the uninsured health care funding is complete junk: vertical legend, abundance of colors, difficult to interpret, and so forth. In the original, the use of white for 0% really enhances the readability of the chart. I agree. The NYT version of the uninsured health care funding is complete junk: vertical legend, abundance of colors, difficult to interpret, and so forth. In the original, the use of white for 0% really enhances the readability of the chart.

]]> By: Garick http://flowingdata.com/2009/12/03/stat-charts-get-a-new-york-times-redesign/#comment-36381 Garick Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:53:05 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=4055#comment-36381 Right, sorry about the sloppy post on my part. You just said nice positive things about the new graphics and I got carried away... :) I love the site, btw. Keep up the great work! Right, sorry about the sloppy post on my part. You just said nice positive things about the new graphics and I got carried away… :)

I love the site, btw.

Keep up the great work!

]]> By: Rich http://flowingdata.com/2009/12/03/stat-charts-get-a-new-york-times-redesign/#comment-36377 Rich Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:03:31 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=4055#comment-36377 One important bit of quantitative data that is not highlighted enough, it seems to me, is the VERY HIGH value of the national average. Using the 2004 numbers, you have to go just about all the way to the "-25%" category before you actually find a population which is majority opposed (and this is only slight, because 73% - 25% = 48%) Overwhelmingly, this survey shows voters IN FAVOR OF SPENDING MORE, as indicated by the fact that when you aggregate the demographics, the most opposed states show around -10% -- which is still nearly 2/3 IN FAVOR. One important bit of quantitative data that is not highlighted enough, it seems to me, is the VERY HIGH value of the national average. Using the 2004 numbers, you have to go just about all the way to the “-25%” category before you actually find a population which is majority opposed (and this is only slight, because 73% – 25% = 48%)

Overwhelmingly, this survey shows voters IN FAVOR OF SPENDING MORE, as indicated by the fact that when you aggregate the demographics, the most opposed states show around -10% — which is still nearly 2/3 IN FAVOR.

]]> By: Tom Auer http://flowingdata.com/2009/12/03/stat-charts-get-a-new-york-times-redesign/#comment-36376 Tom Auer Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:27:00 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=4055#comment-36376 We knew...that's why we so harsh. It's the NYT. We knew…that’s why we so harsh. It’s the NYT.

]]> By: Nathan Yau http://flowingdata.com/2009/12/03/stat-charts-get-a-new-york-times-redesign/#comment-36375 Nathan Yau Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:24:06 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=4055#comment-36375 thanks for your comment, garick. just to be clear, the rework was by the new york times (not me :) thanks for your comment, garick.

just to be clear, the rework was by the new york times (not me :)

]]> By: Garick http://flowingdata.com/2009/12/03/stat-charts-get-a-new-york-times-redesign/#comment-36374 Garick Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:16:15 +0000 http://flowingdata.com/?p=4055#comment-36374 I think the new graphics look good, but are not as good. Here are my thoughts 1. Nate/Gellman graph with white as neutral is better. I can see the party politics patterns and electoral patterns clearly in Nate's and barely in yours. purple doesn't look like 0. Patterns are lost. This graph is like a painting of 'negative space' which for a graph I think is less effective. 2. By dropping 2000 year you are losing the thing graphed ... movement. You could make it an arrow or some other thing that shows movement... but dropping it loses the interesting data. 3. Red/blue on top graph is I think a bad idea. Its certainly not a neutral depiction of the data. Then again .. it does mesh roughly with reality. When people say the average american wants x or y its clearly an overstatement. The county is polarized geographically in a way that matches party lines and Obama's EC map. I think the Income and age relationships are huge, but they are lost with the biasing of the display in red/blue, IMO.... 18-29 year old are that much more democratic I bet... its certainly muddled from using red/blue by comparision. 4. This dem / gop montage thing on the bottom graph is a mistake, IMO. It replaces a chart that showed movement on an issue and the current state on healthcare with a pure political horse race. So, I don't think this adds to a dialog what it could. All I see is ... "is polarization". By pulling the Rs out into a separate area all you do is support that polarized view in which each side has a pre-determined view with minor deviations. Rather than legislators having a position on a spectrum reguardless on party. You are actually supporting polarizing here I think. The graphics are nice... I want to see good graphs like these in magazines, more but I think the sacrifices here are more than they should have been. I think the new graphics look good, but are not as good.

Here are my thoughts

1. Nate/Gellman graph with white as neutral is better. I can see
the party politics patterns and electoral patterns clearly in Nate’s
and barely in yours. purple doesn’t look like 0. Patterns are lost.
This graph is like a painting of ‘negative space’ which for a graph I think is less effective.

2. By dropping 2000 year you are losing the thing graphed … movement. You could make it an arrow or some other thing
that shows movement… but dropping it loses the interesting
data.

3. Red/blue on top graph is I think a bad idea. Its certainly not a
neutral depiction of the data. Then again .. it does mesh roughly
with reality. When people say the average american wants x or y its clearly an overstatement. The county is polarized geographically in a way that matches party lines and Obama’s EC map. I think the Income and age relationships are huge, but they are lost with the biasing of the display in red/blue, IMO….
18-29 year old are that much more democratic I bet… its certainly muddled from using red/blue by comparision.

4. This dem / gop montage thing on the bottom graph is a mistake, IMO. It replaces a chart that showed movement on an issue and the current state on healthcare with a pure political horse race. So, I don’t think this adds to a dialog what it could. All I see is … “is polarization”. By pulling the Rs out into a separate area all you do is support that polarized view in which each side has a pre-determined view with minor deviations. Rather than legislators having a position on a spectrum reguardless on party. You are actually supporting polarizing here I think.

The graphics are nice… I want to see good graphs like these in magazines, more but I think the sacrifices here are more than they should have been.

]]>