I feel there is more emphasis on the technique of how to create the graph to promote the subscription-based website's tutorials instead of the actual thing - which IMHO would actually benefit from less programming wizardry. I find the movement distracting. Instead, show the four years side by side. Dingleberry mentions a box plot, but I think the main point would be to just see the development without having to press buttons and watch an animation (and may I suggest a violin plot, kind of like a box plot but it also shows density information). It took me several iterations of switching until I saw details that would be visible right away if all were shown in one graph, for example that how many outliers there are in each profession changes, meaning the development isn't equal but actually reverses in some of them. But you have to keep going back and forth to see which are which.
So this is what happens when your focus is teaching fancy visualization techniques instead of making the point.
> So this is what happens when your focus is teaching fancy visualization techniques instead of making the point.
Exactly. I am surprised Nathan did this actually. Generally, Data -> Information -> Knowledge -> Wisdom. I feel this particular blog post stops between data and information. The minimum level should at least be information while wisdom or knowledge would be ideal.
It takes 10 seconds to settle, and for any year above 1960, some dots move to above 200K, but around 175K it remains empty. And the relative amounts are similar, invalidating the word "shifting" in the title.
I don't understood this... the guy made some claims and then showed just a very weird graph? Was it supposed to be animated? I noticed some balls moving here and there every 5 seconds.
What the rows and colours are supposed to be? I saw colored dots all over the place with seemly no logic, and those row labels didn't made clear why some row has 3 colors of dots in it while another is empty...
I am dumb, seeing a type of graph I never saw before, or the d3.js he mentions is buggy?
I haven't seen that kind of graph before, but it seems to be working (technically) for me.
It's kind of a histogram with the animation happening between years (buttons at the top). I didn't see any rows with more than one color, so maybe it is buggy for you. Colors seem to align with row labels.
11 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 29.7 ms ] threadSo this is what happens when your focus is teaching fancy visualization techniques instead of making the point.
Exactly. I am surprised Nathan did this actually. Generally, Data -> Information -> Knowledge -> Wisdom. I feel this particular blog post stops between data and information. The minimum level should at least be information while wisdom or knowledge would be ideal.
It takes 10 seconds to settle, and for any year above 1960, some dots move to above 200K, but around 175K it remains empty. And the relative amounts are similar, invalidating the word "shifting" in the title.
https://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/4062045
It's pretty slow on mobile.
What the rows and colours are supposed to be? I saw colored dots all over the place with seemly no logic, and those row labels didn't made clear why some row has 3 colors of dots in it while another is empty...
I am dumb, seeing a type of graph I never saw before, or the d3.js he mentions is buggy?
It's kind of a histogram with the animation happening between years (buttons at the top). I didn't see any rows with more than one color, so maybe it is buggy for you. Colors seem to align with row labels.