Kieran weighs in on the question of how to present the WPA data, following up on Duncan.
In effect, what I’ve done here is choose to break a different rule from Duncan. Instead of putting two scales on the same axis, I have made one axis discontinuous between panels, skipping values in order to compress the horizontal size. Hence the reminder at the top of each panel that you’re shifting up an order of magnitude each time. Despite the rulebreaking, there’s still some principle at work because instead of just putting a discontinuity right at the end (to incorporate the largest value) the panels are split consistently by powers of ten, and it makes sense to think of WPA expenditures as falling into groups like “stuff they spent billions on” versus “stuff they spent tens of millions on” or “stuff they only spent a few million dollars on” and so on.
I like this, too. I can foresee an entire lecture on different ways of presenting information about the WPA…. Students will be so happy.
6 comments
January 3, 2009 at 8:30 am
dana
how come all the presents are for you?
Seriously, though, this is a great graph.
January 3, 2009 at 8:46 am
ari
I guess the rest of us were naughty.
January 3, 2009 at 10:33 am
tf smith
Many thanks to all the artists for the work on various graphics. Very helpful (I have an American labor history course next semester; credits will be happily given).
I’d ask for a permission number for the class on ways to present WPA (and other quantitative) data, except I’m at the other end of the Edge…
My fine u. offers a limited emphasis on archival work (six units at the 500 level), but nothing specific on quantitative graphics. Anyone know if there is a work on the use of graphics in quantitative (or other) history? Or any crossovers with art history or practice?
January 3, 2009 at 2:11 pm
ben
Is it just me, or is the spacing in Kieran’s graph different in different sections? From two to three million is longer than from thirty to forty million, and one million, ten million, one hundred million, and one billion all start at different distances from the discontinuity (ten million isn’t even graphed).
What seems especially bad is that the distance between 80 and 100 million is just about as wide as the difference between 70 and 80 million. That’s the only one where the data in one section come pretty close to abutting the data in the other.
I would make the discontinuity-indicating gaps much wider.
January 4, 2009 at 8:01 am
Barry
I think that in the end, the original graph was the best, for its purpose, which was to show where the overwhelming proportion of money. The flaw in such a graph is that much information is lost about the smaller categories of spending, but in this case, detailed information about the smaller categories was not the purpose.
January 9, 2009 at 11:51 am
jane
Why not just use a regular logarithmic scale? Accomplishes the same display goals, no rule-breaking.