About stacked bar graphs

This afternoon I received a bunch of data accompanied by stacked bar graphs for each dataset. For example, this one: The chart shows the incidence of disease X in various age ranges. That incidence is split by 8 severity levels. The chart shows that the disease especially affects age ranges 4 and 5, at different severity levels. However I didn’t feel comfortable … what are the different levels of severity in age ranges 1, 2 and 3? how can we compare levels C, D and E in age ranges 4 and 5? is there anywhere some severity A? (it’s even worst when some age ranges don’t have any incidence at all: what is happening?) etc. I looked on the web but couldn’t find much information apart from the fact " The Economist says they’re so bad at conveying information, that they’re a great way to hide a bad number amongst good ones" (but are still using them in their graphic detail section) or " a stacked column chart with percentages should always extend to 100%" (this doesn’t really apply here). Then in a post on Junk Charts, someone mentioned Steven Few who would have said “not to use stacked bar charts because you cannot compare individual values very easily and as a rule [he] avoid[s] stacked bars with more than six or seven divisions”. And Steven Few also participated in his forum here. ...

February 8, 2012 · 3 min · jepoirrier

The Top 5 Killers of Men

From Delicious, I saw that Yahoo had an article about the top 5 killers of men. I thought it would be nice to see from where they get there data. First, I have to mention that the article is really about American men, nothing else (not about mankind, not about men around the world, not about women, children, etc.). The article is related to the US National Men’s Health Week (the US National Women’s Health Week was in May 8-14, 2011). Although the article is giving advices, there are no sources of information. ...

June 26, 2011 · 2 min · jepoirrier

Cognitive Surplus visualised

In the 300-and-more RSS items in my aggregator this week, there are 2 great ones from Information is Beautiful, a blog gathering (and publishing its own) nice ways to visualise data. The first one is based on a talk by Clay Shirky who, in turn, was referencing his book Cognitive Surplus. In Cognitive Surplus visualized, David McCandless just represented one of Shirky’s ideas: 200 billion hours are spent each year by US adults just watching TV whereas only 100 million hours were necessary to create Wikipedia (I guess the platform + the content) … ...

July 19, 2010 · 2 min · jepoirrier