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.