The World Economic Forum (WEF) and Visualizing.org have recently issued a Data Visualization contest in which interactive designers were asked to develop cutting-edge visualizations that will help elucidate the interconnectedness among issues, highlight emerging clusters and catalyze dialogue at the Summit between Councils. The data for this contest was derived from a survey of experts of the 72 Global Agenda Councils of the WEF, and they were asked the following three questions:
- “Please select a maximum of 5 Global Agenda Councils that your Council would benefit from interacting with by order of priority”
- “Please select a maximum of 3 Industry / Regional Agenda Councils that your Council would benefit from interacting with by order of priority”
- “Please describe how it interlinks with your Council”
The data was an Excel workbook with 3 sheets (or 3 CSV files) that contained the survey data:
- A matrix with pre-calculated weighted links between Councils
- A flat list of all the survey data
- All the survey data, but in a different structure (this time by respondent Council)
The World Economic Forum Councils
The WEF consists of 3 Agenda’s:
- Global Agenda (divided into 3 subgroups: Drivers and Trends, Risks and Opportunities, Policy and Institutional Responses)
- Industry Agenda
- Regional Agenda
The Global Agenda has 72 Councils, the Regional Agenda 10 Councils, and the Industry Agenda 14 Councils. All of the Councils are concerned with a specific issue (e.g. human rights or ocean governance). Each Council has 1 or more organizations of various types (government, NGO, business, etc.) and each organization may be located in a different country.
Visualizing the data
Since the purpose of the visualization was to find clusters, and show the interconnectedness, the most obvious visualization I started out with was a network or graph visualization. I started out with a network or graph visualization. I used the Force-Directed layout of Protovis to create a network of all the links of all the Councils. I also used a K-Means clustering algorithm and a Community Detection Algorithm to find clusters, but the graph was too dense to find any sensible clusters. It appeared that almost every Council links to every other Council. So even though the visualization looked impressively complex, you could not get any valuable information from it. So I stopped pursuing this direction.
My next approach was to try if a radial layout would work. I was inspired by many of the visualizations on www.visualcomplexity.com and Circos. First I started out with just a radial layout of all the Councils, and then played with the visual encoding some of the dimensions, like line thickness and color. For the image below, I filtered the data only to rank 1 and Global Agenda. This resulted in less data which is easier to work with when prototyping.
This was a good start, and proved enough potential for me to continue working on this. On of the biggest flaws of the image above is that you don’t see who interlinks with who (who is the respondent Council and who is the linked Council). So next I decided to create two half circles instead of one: one for respondent Councils and one for linked Councils. This appeared to be a good choice. I also worked on a better color palette, and more encoding of the data (for instance, width of the bar shows the number of links). This is what I ended up with:
Then I added more refinements, like adding a height to each bar for stronger links, adding a filter option for the combination of rank and Agenda, and also the ability to view Council links in isolation. I changed the color to blue and orange instead of green and orange, because of the colorblind people. I also kept ‘data-ink ratio’ by Edward Tufte in mind: remove as much (visual) clutter as possible. Martin Wattenberg once said: “if you start playing with your visualization, you know you’re on the right direction”. And that’s exactly what happened when I added the ability to view Council links in isolation. The final result looks like this:
One of my biggest challenges was that I didn’t understand the matrix in the data set; I couldn’t understand the logic behind it. And then when I finally thought I realized that not all data was shown, but just the strongest links so that apparently uninteresting data was omitted, I came to realize that the data in the matrix was not normalized. So, a link between Council A and B of 0.5 in the matrix was not the same as a link between Council C and D of 0.5. And because I didn’t understand the logic behind the values in the matrix, I decided not to use the values in the matrix, but do my own calculations on link strength.
I’m very satisfied with the result, and at the same time I see room for improvements. I like the fact that the visualization communicates mainly visually: line thickness, line color, bar width and bar height are the main visual elements that make it easy to spot interesting links or Councils. Also, I haven’t seen circular layouts like this in Protovis yet, so it was also fun to try something new like this.
A suggestion I received from Mike Bostock was to make the selection of the Councils fuzzier. Right now the bars of the Councils can become very thin or small, and selecting them may be somewhat difficult. By using a more fuzzy selection the user experience may improve.
I have considered adding a filter for link strength as way to reduce the number of links shown. But so far I’m not yet convinced that this will reveal more clusters.
The visualization omits some data that may be of interest: for instance, organization type is currently ignored, as well as country. It may be interesting to see if finding clusters would be easier if organization type or country (or a combination) would be used instead of a respondent Council. Also, there is currently no back-link from the linked Council to the respondent Councils. So, you cannot see if the linked Council wants to interact with the Councils that are linking to this Council.
Finally, I think that in order to find clusters the survey should not have this many options for it respondents. I would suggest just 2 ranks for Global Agenda, and 1 rank for Industry / Regional Agenda. It appears that giving Councils (or better yet, the organizations of each Council) this many options to link to other Councils, results in a situation that at some level, almost every Council links to every other Council. Using fewer ranks to choose from will probably reveal a more polarized choice, and will make it easier to find clusters.