Ask and ye shall receive: more on where the stimulus money will go

I'm hoping that someone at ProPublica will soon update [a treemap of the House's stimulus bill], including a treemap of the bill's Senate version and providing graphics that compare 1) the proposed dollar amounts, 2) sector spending and 3) the timetables.

Apparently I'm not the only one who thought this would be a good idea, because now Shovelwatch.org presents a treemap of the Senate bill — and, even better, a bar chart comparing the two versions. ProPublica has a brief text item on the contrasts, but the chart is a far superior means of expressing them. Here's why:

It's interactive, so you can choose exactly what you which aspects of the data you want to see and exactly how you want to see them (by average, by total, by whose bill they come from). Sometimes interactivity is like lipstick on a pig (ahem) — a last-ditch gimmick to save a bad chart — but here it's appropriate and meaningful.
You can choose what you want on the X axis: allocation of monies by general category (e.g. aid to states, tax cuts, energy) or by individual program (e.g. railroads, Medicaid, highways, school construction).
You can view aggregates charted by categories' total costs or average per-program cost.
Those X-axis items can be sorted alphabetically (and reverse-alphabetically!) and in order of magnitude.
You can see columns for House provisions only, Senate provisions only, or both simultaneously for instant contrast.
Hovering your cursor over each bar on the chart triggers a pop-up box telling you what the category is, whose plan it comes from, how many programs comprise that category and either the category total or average per-program cost.

Bravo, Shovelwatch, and thank you. Exemplary work.

Next up, I hope (are you listening out there, viz whizzes?): a visualization of the final version soon to be signed by the President. Then we can all start griping knowledgeably and in earnest.

Comments

I want to be Jorge Camoes when I grow up.

Portuguese infoviz enthusiast Jorge Camoes has spent the last year and a half writing informed, insightful blog posts on the field, complete with examples and citations. To his credit, he approaches everything -- even the revered work of Edward Tufte and Stephen Few -- with loving skepticism. I'm gratified, too, that he seems to agree with me on one central point: Snazzy tools alone don't get you good data visualization. It all comes down to putting serious thought into the project before you plot the first data point. In future posts we'll discuss more of Jorge's ideas. Bem feito, o Sr. Camoes!

Everybody loves visual information — especially Abraham Lincoln.

Infographics are clearly having a cultural moment. They have become pervasive in newspapers, magazines, blog posts, and viral tweets; they appear on television and in advertising, in political campaigns and at art openings. As a Google search term, “infographic” has increased nearly twenty-fold in the last five years. Yet infographics have been popular, in one form or another, for centuries. The source of their power isn’t computers or the Internet, but the brain’s natural visual intelligence. Gareth Cook , the editor of Best American Infographics 2013 , has put together a short but true summary of the history of information graphics. (Many of you who see this blog may know most of it already.) His striking lede recounts how much Abraham Lincoln valued his "slave map," shown above. Lincoln's reliance on the shades of gray throughout the Confederacy made an enormous difference in his Civil War decision-making. Fortunately it's rare that most people have to make l

Hype and backlash:
visualizing pop culture trends

Back in 2005, the astute pop-culture chronicler Adam Sternbergh pointed out that a person's opinion of any given entertainment product depends largely on how long they've been aware of it — that is, where the product sits on the sine-wave timeline of public expectations (aka buzz). His findings, in chart form: "Welcome to the undulating curve of shifting expectations—the Heisenbergian principle by which hype determines how much you enjoy a given pop-culture phenomenon. The first-wave audience is pleasantly surprised, but the second-wavers feel let down; then the third wave finds it’s not as bad as they’ve heard—and they’re all watching the exact same show." Almost five years later, this pattern describes just about all our collective experiences. Sports fans, how much sweeter was it to watch the New Orleans Saints come out of nowhere to win the NFC championship than to have seen the Minnesota Vikings do it for the umpteenth time? As for politics, consider the poll

I See What You Mean

Search This Blog