I'm not entirely sure how to interpret this music video from Franz Ferdinand, but I'm taking it as a critique on internet culture, with less-than-meaningful charts playing a part. There are lots of colors, geometric shapes, and pictograms flying around the band, with no information attached. I guess that's about right. [Thanks, @augustjoki]
In a study conducted by researchers at Harvard and UC Berkeley, data shows spatial variations for the chances of rising out of poverty into higher income brackets. The New York Times reports:
Climbing the income ladder occurs less often in the Southeast and industrial Midwest, the data shows, with the odds notably low in Atlanta, Charlotte, Memphis, Raleigh, Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Columbus. By contrast, some of the highest rates occur in the Northeast, Great Plains and West, including in New York, Boston, Salt Lake City, Pittsburgh, Seattle and large swaths of California and Minnesota.
"Where you grow up matters," said Nathaniel Hendren, a Harvard economist and one of the study's authors. "There is tremendous variation across the U.S. in the extent to which kids can rise out of poverty."
Two things. First, the NYT piece is really nice. Graphics and interactives are typically shown separate from the written story, but NYT has been shifting as of late and I'm sure other publications will follow. (Although, as you can see in the credits, eight people made the graphics, and most places don't have such resources yet.) The story is all tied together, so you read and interact in a continuous flow.
Second, the Harvard/UC Berkeley research group released the data, so you can have a go yourself.
Whereas the original interactive showed price changes from only one point of reference, the updated one lets you shift the point of reference so you can see how prices have shifted in major cities since the date of sale.
I found myself brushing the slider back and forth just for kicks.
In a different take on the income inequality issue, the Economic Policy Institute, in collaboration with Periscopic, created Inequality Is.
The Inequality.is website brings clarity to the national dialogue on wage and income inequality, using interactive tools and videos to tell the story of how we arrived at the state of inequality we find today and what can be done to reverse course and ensure workers get their fair share.
Inequality is: real, personal, expensive, created, and fixable. These are the categories the interactive takes you through to explain the subject. The first part reminds you of the video we saw on wealth distribution, which showed what people thought was an ideal distribution of wealth, what they thought it was in real life, and then what it actually was. However, in this interactive, you're the one answering, which sort of sets the stage for the rest of the interactive. The goal is to make the data more relatable.
Be sure to go through the whole piece. It rounds off nicely with a video explanation with public policy professor Robert Reich and ways to shift the inequality in the other direction.
In celebration of Arrested Development's return via Netflix, NPR combed through the jokes — obvious and obscure — and set them in a handy interactive guide.
Arrested Development is back! Because
we're obsessedwe care about your watching enjoyment, we wrote down all the recurring gags in every episode — including the new season 4 episodes — with special attention to jokes hidden in the background (like Cloudmir vodka) or being foreshadowed (like when Buster lost his hand).
The three categories of joke are color-coded, where each row represents a joke and a tick represents an occurrence of that joke over four seasons.
I've only watched a handful of episodes, but I'm tempted to turn on Netflix with this guide in front of me. [Thanks, @onyxfish]
This stop motion video from BuzzFeed shows how much food you can buy for $5 USD in different countries. For example, five bucks will get you 7 pounds of rice in the United States and 12 pounds in China. The video is straightforward, but the animation of food appearing and disappearing — or rather, added and taken away — lends well to the context that you wouldn't get from a quick chart.
The gut instinct seems to be "Hey, we should all move to China." Better follow that up with non-Chinese salaries.
Mr. Dalliard provides this handy flowchart to organize time travel movies. And yes, I immediately looked for Back to the Future and backtracked.
The Kepler mission by NASA has discovered more than 100 planets that orbit stars. Jonathan Corum for The New York Times visualized the ones with known size and orbit using small multiples. Scroll all the way down for our solar system as a point of reference.
This video clearly describes the distribution of wealth in America using a set of transitioning charts. The graphics are good. The explanation is better.
How much space is there per person in different countries? Andrew Bergmann for CNNMoney took a look.
Population density measures the amount of people in a given area, generally per square kilometer or mile. It's difficult to get a clear image of what these vast spaces actually represent, so I thought that it would be interesting to flip the equation on its head and figure out how much space there is on average per person.
The interactive shows 20 countries and each is represented by a circle sized by average square feet per person. Of course, as with population density, this data is broad with land distribution and usage to consider, but it's informative from a general viewpoint. Although the math might be slightly off in the square feet calculation. Or maybe that's just rounding.
Long distances (and big numbers) can be difficult grasp. Designers Jesse Williams and David Paliwoda took a stab at it and made it easier to understand the distance from Mars. Simple and totally fun. I'm not sure how accurate the travel time and distance are, but I'm guessing it takes differing orbits into account.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cab drivers and chauffeurs make a median salary of $22,400 per year, or $10.79 an hour. (I believe that's not including tips.) Using about three months of fare data from a single driver, Alvin Chang for The Boston Globe showed how a driver makes a living day-to-day.
Time runs left to right, and each column represents fares collected in a day. A driver starts each day in the red when he or she leases a cab for $125, which includes gas, and then works into the blue.
After an animation plays out over a few seconds, you can click to zoom in and see specific fares. I expected to drag left and right once zoom, but the chart just zooms back out. I suspect the interaction is mostly there for people on mobile devices. I also wanted to scrub the vertical line that indicates time to see details for spikes or days no fares were collected.
So there's still a bit to be desired here, but the data itself is interesting, which makes it worth a look.
You want to leave a mark, not a blemish. Be a hero, not a spectator. You want to be interesting. (Who doesn’t?) But sometimes it takes a nudge, a wake-up call, an intervention!—and a little help. This is where Jessica Hagy comes in. A writer and illustrator of great economy, charm, and insight, she’s created How to Be Interesting, a uniquely inspirational how-to that combines fresh and pithy lessons with deceptively simple diagrams and charts.
The book started from this, which could probably also stand in as a guide on how to enjoy life.
It can be tricky picking the right seat at a dinner party. So much depends on how many people there are and what shape the table is. Luckily, Alex Cornell provides a guide on where to sit and when to arrive to get the best seat of the night. The 4-person circle is your best bet.
This is the ideal setup. You are safe sitting in any seat. Regardless how interesting everyone is, you pretty much can’t go wrong. Note: as the diameter of the table increases, so too does the importance that you sit adjacent to someone you like.
Sorry for always sitting at the lonely end seat in the 7-person rectangle. [via kottke]
Shan Carter, Amanda Cox, and Mike Bostock for The New York Times, analyzed movie trailers for five best picture nominees. The horizontal axis represents time elapsed during a trailer, and the vertical axis represents when that clip occurred during the movie. The above is for Silver Linings Playbook:
"Silver Linings Playbook" follows the standard model for trailers, according to Bill Woolery, a trailer specialist in Los Angeles who once worked on trailers for movies like "The Usual Suspects" and "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial." While introducing the movie’s story and its characters, the trailer largely follows the order of the film itself.
Because the order of the trailer is pretty much the order of the movie, you see a straight line with a downward slope most of the way. On the other hand, the Lincoln trailer jumps around showing a zig-zag pattern.
In addition to the charts, the healthy dose of annotation provides interesting tidbits on the reasoning behind pace and scene choice.
Information visualization firm Periscopic just published a thoughtful interactive piece on gun murders in the United States, in 2010. It starts with the individuals: when they were killed, coupled with the years they potentially lost. Each arc represents a person, with lived years in orange and the difference in potential years in white. A mouseover on each arc shows more details about that person.
The Lotr Project breaks down the thought process in the magical mind.
The Chronicle of Higher Education has a look at the percentage of academic papers published by women, over the past five centuries.
The articles and authors described in this data were drawn from the corpus of JSTOR, a digital archive of scholarly papers, by researchers at the Eigenfactor Project at the University of Washington. About two million articles, representing 1765 fields and sub-fields, were examined, spanning a period from 1665 to 2011. The data are presented here for three time periods, the latest one ending in 2010, and a view that combines all periods.
Percentage of female authors is on the horizontal, and each bubble is a subfield sized by total number of authors. The graphic starts with publishing for all years, but be sure to click on the tabs for each time span to see changes.
The data is based on the archive of about two million articles from JSTOR, and a hierarchical map equation method is used to determine subfields.
The gender classification they used for names seems like it could be nifty for some applications. Gender is inferred by comparing names against the ones kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration, which includes gender. If a name was used for female at least 95 percent of the time, it was classified as a female name, and the same was done with male. Anything ambiguous was not included in the study.