Guidelines
Suggest edit

Use contiguous cartograms instead of rectangular cartograms for area-comparison tasks

For compare tasks on geospatial cartograms, prefer a contiguous cartogram type on area-encoded map views to improve fidelity and mitigate area-judgment errors for readers comparing region sizes, ranking regions, or judging growth and shrinkage.

  • purpose:refine
  • basis:empirical
  • task:compare
  • chart:map
  • data:geospatial
  • quality:fidelity:use
  • lever:chart-family
  • channel:area

advice

Choose a contiguous cartogram for area judgments

Use a contiguous cartogram when readers must compare region areas, identify the largest regions, or judge whether a region grew or shrank. For example, replace a rectangular cartogram with a contiguous cartogram for bigger-than, top-k, or change-detection tasks.

reason

Why contiguous cartograms help size judgments

Area judgments get harder when region shapes become overly schematic or visually awkward, and contiguous cartograms reduce that problem relative to rectangular ones.

Mechanism: A contiguous cartogram keeps the region as a connected, map-like area, which supports direct size comparison better than a rectangular cartogram with potentially misleading rectangle shapes and aspect ratios.

Evidence: In the controlled study, contiguous cartograms had the lowest error across compare, find top-k, and detect change tasks, and they were significantly more accurate than rectangular cartograms on all three tasks (Nusrat et al., 2018; Zeng & Battle, 2023).

context

Use when readers must compare areas region by region

  • User Goal: Judge which region is bigger, which regions rank highest, or whether a region increased or decreased.
  • Task: Compare areas, find top-k, or detect change in a cartogram.
  • Data: Geospatial regions with values encoded by area.
  • Chart Setting: A static cartogram where individual region areas must be compared directly.
  • Success Criterion: Fewer size-comparison errors.

exceptions

Do not use when only the overall pattern matters

Break it when: The chart’s job is broad pattern summary rather than region-by-region area judgment. Why: Dorling cartograms performed best for summarize tasks and rectangular cartograms were not needed for that overview role.

costs

Tradeoffs of using a contiguous cartogram for size judgments

Sacrifice: Perfect regularity of region shape. Risk: Some shapes still distort enough to make other tasks, such as exact shape recognition, harder. Mitigation: If the task changes to shape recognition, switch to a non-contiguous cartogram.

mistakes

Common failure mode for area comparison

Mistake: Using a rectangular cartogram for region-size judgments. Why it fails: Rectangle forms and aspect ratios make region-by-region size judgments less accurate in practice.

check

Check whether the cartogram supports area judgments

Failure Sign: Readers miss which region is bigger, which ranks highest, or whether a region changed size. Quick Check: Ask one larger-than or top-k question on the current cartogram and on a contiguous alternative. Stronger Test: Compare error rates across a small set of compare, ranking, and change-detection questions.

fix

Fix the area-comparison failure

  • Replace the rectangular cartogram with a contiguous cartogram.
  • Keep area as the value channel, but move the reader to connected, map-like regions rather than rectangles.
  • If the chart only needs a broad overview, switch to a Dorling cartogram instead of keeping the rectangular form.

References

Nusrat, S., Alam, Md. J., & Kobourov, S. (2018). Evaluating Cartogram Effectiveness. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(2), 1077–1090. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2642109
Zeng, Z., & Battle, L. (2023). A Review and Collation of Graphical Perception Knowledge for Visualization Recommendation. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581349