The Introduction to Infographics and Data Visualization course begins Sunday so I’m starting to receive emails from the instructor. The first thing I need to do is tackle the reading list and then take a look at the first assignment, which involves the review of this graphic, which was based on a survey of 32,000 Internet users from 16 different countries. The survey asked these users about the kind of online services they used on a regular basis.
The online class discussion was pretty good and very thorough. My own thoughts began with the graphic “building block” that the designer used to organize and convey information. This consisted of a nested group of overlapping doughnut charts that used color, size and fractional divisions to represent the data for each country (see below).
I think that the arcs of the doughnut are meant to be interpreted in two dimensions: 1) the sweep of the arc represents the % of the category population that is engaged in the activity (similar to a regular pie chart) and 2) the radius from the center represents the overal size of the category population (similar to a regular bubble chart). Both pie charts and bubble charts can work in certain circumstances but they make direct comparisons difficult. Throw in the fact that the arcs overlap and it is almost impossible to understand the meaning associated with different variables. For example, the predominant color in graphs for countries like the U.S. or Canada is pink, which downplays the larger population of social profile users.
My first instinct for adjusting this infographic was to “unpack” the doughnut chart and place the data in a regular bar chart. By using standard bars, it is fairly easy to make comparisons between the different categories. The bar chart also shows percentages naturally if I include a gray bar that represents the total population of internet users. (The value of the gray bar is an assumption on my part, calculated by dividing the user value by the access percentage. This works for almost every country excpet the U.S. and the U.K.)
The real power of this approach comes with side-by-side comparisons of the data. After swapping the axes and adding in the other countries, the resulting chart allows for relatively easy comparison of both overall Internet usage and individual social media involvement. Both the U.S. and U.K. totals are fudged.
One problem I have with this chart is the huge amount of white space in the upper right quadrant. This is caused by the great disparity in size between the Internet populations of the largest and smallest countries. Adjustments like the use of a logarithmic scales or scatterplots might be able to fill out the canvas a bit but they also make direct comparisons more difficult. I’m also not too sure about the color scheme, which I find somewhat distracting.
Tackling both of these issues at once, I’ve removed the seperate colors for the social media categories and added in an overlay that uses a radar chart to show the realtive differences between social media usage within countries.
The radar charts are kind of fun and they make it pretty easy to see different patterns of Internet usage among the 16 countries. The higher social profile participation (and lower blog usage) of Western countries creates a distinctive shape when compared to Asian countries like Japan and South Korea. The two-color scheme also makes it easier to see patterns in the column charts. However, I’m not sure that depending on the order of the columns is enough to compare social categories across countries.
I’m going to let my solution stand for now. Meanwhile, here are some other solutions from the class and around the web: