Posts Tagged complexity
Animated graphs, part III
Posted by Aaron in Infographics on November 26th, 2008
This is a continuation of Animated graphs, part II
I’ve talked the last two weeks about a series of animated, interactive graphics used by Hans Rosling to illustrate the differences, and surprising similarities, between the global “haves” and “have nots.” The first week, I showed how a little animation can make great graphs. The second week, I analyzed Rosling’s progression from simple graphs — which give the audience a framework for understanding — to complex, nuanced analysis of reality. Rosling uses animation to build upon his previous graphs for a seamless interaction with the audience
In this final installment, I look at just the following slide, in which Rosling shows not only the child survival rate and GDP per capita for each of 200 countries in the world, but he also displays data by quintiles for five African countries.
Animated graphs, part II
Posted by Aaron in Infographics on November 20th, 2008
This is a continuation of Animated graphs, part I
Last week I began an analysis of the images Hans Rosling uses in his presentation on the relationship between the global “haves” and “have nots.” In particular, his focus is on how people’s conceptions of the global North and global South (different terminology for the same concept of haves/have nots) may have been an accurate reflection of reality at one point in history, but may not be accurate today.
To make his case, he relies on a few sets of time-series data which he presents to great effect in some animated graphics. One thing that I like about Rosling’s work is that he start simple to get his audience to understand what he is talking about. Then he builds in data to make the presentation more accurate and nuanced.
For example, he presents a graph here that compares child survival rates with per capita income. Circles toward the top show better chances for survival, while circles toward the right show wealthier countries. Rosling adds a very helpful label (“good” and “bad” for health) to explain the “survival” scale, which some readers may find cryptic:
