These two graphs show the relationship between year and percentage. They differ because one shows a chart that has a more intense increase, which is more pleasing to the eye when being used, for example, regarding percentage of passing CMT scores. The other shows the same information, just with a less visually appealing slope.
It is possible to manipulate a graphical depiction of data to misrepresent information. The two graphs above, Version 1 and Version 2, both show identical information correctly. However, as is visually evident, the shape of the data is quite different in each of the graphs. The curve has been distorted by changing the y-axis scale. In Version 1, which possesses a vertical axis range of [40, 80], the scale has been calibrated in a manner that is most appropriate for the data set, and does not extend far beyond the numbers imputed into the graph. In Version 2, however, the y-axis scale has been set to [0, 100]. The effect, though not erroneous, is misleading. In Version 1, the curve is quite steep, which implies a drastic a change in values over time. In Version, the curve is flattened, which gives the impression that the change over time has not been notable at all. It is not the data that is being changed, therefore no fault can be made to human error or falsification. However, by varying the y-axis scale endpoints, it is possible to manipulate the curve of the graph and warp the shape of the data.
This exercise demonstrates 2 different chart extremes and how lies are told using charts. The first chart shows a substantial amount of growth from the year 1950 to 2010. The year 1950 started with a percentage of 40 and by 2010 the chart is up to 80%. Now the second chart, shows a moderate amount of growth based on the way the line is depicted in the chart. However, both charts are depicting the same data, the same 40% to 80% increase. Yet, the first chart shows a more drastic change than the second. If we study the first chart closely, you will notice the vertical axis begins at 40% and the vertical axis increases by increments of 10. The second chart begins at 0% and the vertical axis increases by increments of 20. By starting this chart at 0 although the first point is 40%, it appeared the growth was less significant because the points were starting much higher up in the chart. This exercise demonstrates how easy it is to manipulate charts in order to lie with statistics. When readings charts, one must pay attention to every aspect of the chart in order to not be fooled by manipulations of charts.
In my second map I did remove the towns that contained no data; as you can see they leave questionable holes hence why I believed making them red and including it in a map key was more helpful. I utilized the bucket tool for this one and created five buckets (again because of limited color choice) and divided the buckets at numerical values I believe resemble some importance.
The darkest shade indicates square footage required up to 6000 feet for the ability to build multifamily housing (again think least prohibitive). I thought this showed an “easy glance” at how spread out accessible building options are across the data received.
The second darkest is for values between 6,000 and 15,000 square feet. This seemed to me where the majority of the data fell, what I was hoping to illustrate again though is how scattered these towns are in comparison to other towns of similar square footage requirements.
The Third shade (the middle in light and dark) represents zoning regulations requiring 15,000 sq ft to 100,000 square feet.
The Fourth Shade (4th lightest to the first) indicates zoning regulations between 100,000 sq feet and 500,000 sq feet. This was done for two reasons. The first being the limited gradient scale provided by Google Fusion, and I wanted to show how many areas make it difficult for developers to build multifamily housing.
The Lightest Shade – illustrates square footage values from 500,000 sq feet to 653,400 sq feet. Simple because the latter value is the largest the data goes up to.
A note: I did take a screen shot of the bucket table which would work for a rudimentary map key unfortunately, we are unable to upload pictures to word press. I do think this would work as a beginning for making map keys. Especially since simple photo editing software would allow one to “edit” the screen shot to employ proper tag labeling.