In the news

What's so hard to understand about the difference between 3% and 41%?
Just possibly an info-graphic is not really needed at all in this case in what is supposed to be a serious paper for intelligent adults?

I am suffering some sort of bizarre syndrome where I assume everything I see comes from the Guardian. Anyway, there are other results in this poll that are worth reading about too

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/tuc-poll-finds-that-support-for-benefit-cuts-depends-on-misconceptions

I'm saying that the area isn't how it should be measured, exactly because it's so much harder to gauge because of the stupid maths. The images I used are actually squares, if the white bits were filled in and used to represent the figures it would be correct, what makes it different because they are circles? They are still 41% or 3% of the size of the 100% even if the area isn't, and it's much easier for a layperson such as myself to immediately see the difference.

Bar chart then

Clunky as hell, but the contrasts are much clearer I think

^^^you're right, they're not incorrect, but it is a failure by the designer to make the data as easy to understand as possible, if there was no original intent to do that then they would have just stated the numbers on the page and moved on. Also that link posted shows that research has found that people are likely to underestimate the area of circles and through that practice has been developed to compensate for this.

Obviously, there are a myriad of ways (judging by a quick google search) to skin this particular moggy. The point is that using these circles is not a misleading way of representing the data, or that they were incorrect, as originally claimed.

Ok fine, they're not wrong, they're just obtuse.

The images I used are actually squares, if the white bits were filled in and used to represent the figures it would be correct, what makes it different because they are circles?

Really??

100 x 100mm square is 10,000mm squared

41 x 41mm square is 1,681mm squared which is 16.9% of the size of the 100x100 square, not 41%

This is not rocket surgery.

For example;

The smallest square is half as wide/tall as the middle square but is 4 times "smaller"

Ok fine, they're not wrong, they're just obtuse.

triangles, see?

Pie anyone?

The graph isn't asking people to judge the area of a circle. It's giving the percentage, so that's not necessary. It is offering a very simple visual representation of differences. That is all. And it works. I can very easily see that the relative difference of the first two is 'a lot' and the third 'not so much'. If you find it confusing you're thinking about it too much.

This.

A big circle is bigger than another circle, which in turn is bigger than another.

Luckily the reader has the numbers in the circles, if they want the detail of it, and don't have to measure pixels to understand it.

Pie anyone?

Yes please

This ^ ^^^needs own thread?
Poll¿
42% yes
0.0007% no

I like the circles

I like the circles

Filth!

Stop ogling those figures and go ride your bike.

What a monumentally stupid cunt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/jan/08/david-bowie-new-album-single

sounds like he's in better voice than most of his contemporaries.

What a monumentally stupid cunt.

You've got to love the irony though...

a dredge regarding the whole circle/infographic debacle.

here's a doodle from my uni days:

by area works, people.

I'm confused, because I see the two circles as being arbitrary shapes used to represent percentages, which should be directly relative to the size of the hypothetical 100%

So say this 100x100mm circle represents 100% of the welfare budget:

This circle is 41x41mm: so is 41% of the size of the entire welfare budget, and the percentage that people perceive goes to unemployment benefits:

And this is 3x3mm: 3% the size of the 100% welfare budget, which is the actual amount spent on unemployment benefits

I agree with skydancer that two pie charts have been much more effective. Or even a bar chart.

I thought you were a designer?

But where's Joe McElderry now, eh?

Who cares?

^^I don't even know who the people are/were, it was just a (sort of relevant at the time) table of numbers to me.

They're PEOPLE, with FEELINGS and HOPES and DREAMS!

the FUCK is wrong with people giving a fuck about flying a flag? total dickheads all of 'em, both sides - shame because Belfast is a great city

They're PEOPLE, with broken FEELINGS and shattered HOPES and smashed DREAMS!

Except the one what won.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20942340

Yay for the Dutch?