Happy holidays to all my readers! A special shutout to those who've been around for over 15 years.
The following enhanced data table appeared in Significance magazine (August 2021) under an article titled "Winning an election, not a popularity contest" (link, paywalled)
First is the antiquated style guide of academic journals, in which they turn legends into text, and insert the text into a caption. This is one of the worst journalistic practices that continue to be followed.
The table shows 50 states plus District of Columbia. The authors are interested in the extreme case in which a hypothetical U.S. presidential candidate wins the electoral college with the lowest possible popular vote margin. If you've been following U.S. presidential politics, you'd know that the electoral college effectively deflates the value of big-city votes so that the electoral vote margin can be a lot larger than the popular vote margin.
The two sub-tables show two different scenarios: Scenario A is a configuration computed by NPR in one of their reports. Scenario B is a configuration created by the authors (Leinwand, et. al.).
The table cells are given one of four colors: green = needed in the winning configuration; white = not needed; yellow = state needed in Scenario B but not in Scenario A; grey = state needed in Scenario A but not in Scenario B.
The second problem is that the above description of the color legend is not quite correct. Green, it turns out, is only correctly explained for Scenario A. Green for Scenario B encodes those states that are needed for the candidate to win the electoral college in Scenario B minus those states that are needed in Scenario B but not in Scenario A (shown in yellow). There is a similar problem with interpreting the white color in the table for Scenario B.
To fix this problem, start with the Q corner of the Trifecta Checkup.
The designer wants to convey an interlocking pair of insights: the winning configuration of states for each of the two scenarios; and the difference between those two configurations.
The problem with the current design is that it elevates the second insight over the first. However, the second insight is a derivative of the first so it's hard to get to the second spot without reaching the first.
The following revision addresses this problem: