Note: first picture is the original data visualization (in this instance, I’m considering an Excel table to be a data table) which contains information about certified poll watchers for Clayton County, GA. The second is a spatial map plotting the location from which the the certified poll watcher for Clayton County, GA originates from.
Looking at the first data table, the way in which it is formatted makes it hard to draw any kind of correlation between the individual pieces of data. As a result, it appears that this data table and information is somehow neutral and doesn’t have the capability of being weaved into narrative. One of the most pressing questions that I wanted to be answered from the data set was whether there was any correlation between birth location and party affiliation. Thus, creating this second visualization was a way to spatialize these data points and see correlations that would not have been easy to with the first visualization.
The few takeaways from this map is that there seems to be more Democratic poll watchers than for any other party and these poll watchers seem to be come from a wider range of locations. In contrast, the Republican party seems to have poll watchers concentrated from a few location. Another insight is that those who were born in the county seemed to be chosen at a higher rate, leading into questions such as whether the selection process for poll watchers just inherently favors individuals born in the county or whether there is just greater likelihood of being political active hence a greater sample size to choose poll watchers from.
In creating this second visualization, one of the largest takeaways is that transforming data visualizations into other formats can allow for further questioning and weaving of narratives than other types of data visualizations.
Hey Emily, like you said I also think that table don’t allow you see or make connections between the rows/Columns. The same thing happened to me when I was just looking at the straight data table of the visualization I made. It didn’t seem to be showing anything. What’s interesting and funny to me is that making a new visualization is simply doing the work for us by doing one more level of interpretation.
I think the chart you made has so many levels that are impossible to see when looking at the data table. Your map has the geographical aspects to it (+ the name of the locations when putting the cursor on a square). This makes me wonder if you had to find the latitude and longitude for each or was it already included in the data? There is also the many colored square representing the political affiliation of the poll workers. There is just as much information in both the table and the map yet the second visualization can be interpreted and understood much quicker.