Guidelines
Suggest edit

Use non-contiguous cartograms for region shape recognition

For lookup tasks on geospatial cartograms, prefer a shape-preserving cartogram type on distorted map views to improve fidelity and mitigate region-shape identification errors for readers matching regions back to the original map.

  • purpose:refine
  • basis:empirical
  • task:retrieve
  • chart:map
  • data:geospatial
  • quality:fidelity:use
  • lever:chart-family
  • reading-mode:lookup

advice

Choose a shape-preserving cartogram type

Use a non-contiguous cartogram when readers must recognize a region by its original outline. For example, replace a contiguous cartogram with a non-contiguous cartogram for map-to-cartogram shape-matching tasks.

reason

Why shape preservation works here

Preserving the original region outline removes the extra step of decoding a deformed polygon before the reader can match it to the source geography.

Mechanism: A non-contiguous cartogram keeps each region’s original shape, so readers can match outlines directly instead of inferring them from a distorted boundary.

Evidence: In the controlled study, non-contiguous cartograms produced significantly lower error than contiguous cartograms on the recognize task, while completion time was not significantly different (Nusrat et al., 2018; Zeng & Battle, 2023).

context

Use when shape matching is the main job

  • User Goal: Match a region in the cartogram back to its original geographic shape.
  • Task: Identify which distorted region corresponds to a region from the source map.
  • Data: Geospatial regions where outline recognition matters.
  • Chart Setting: A static cartogram is being used as a map-like view rather than only as an abstract summary.
  • Success Criterion: Fewer recognition errors.

exceptions

Do not use when shared borders matter more than outlines

Break it when: The main task is finding which regions touch each other. Why: Non-contiguous cartograms do not preserve adjacency, and they performed poorly on neighbor-finding.

costs

Tradeoffs of shape preservation

Sacrifice: Shared borders between regions. Risk: The map can become sparse and visually fragmented. Mitigation: If adjacency must remain readable, switch to a contiguous cartogram instead of forcing the task onto a non-contiguous one.

mistakes

Common failure mode for shape recognition

Mistake: Asking readers to recognize region shapes in a cartogram that replaces regions with circles, rectangles, or heavily deformed polygons. Why it fails: The original outlines are no longer directly available for matching.

check

Check whether shape recognition is being supported

Failure Sign: Readers confuse which cartogram region corresponds to the original map region. Quick Check: Ask a reviewer to match one highlighted source-map region to the correct cartogram region. Stronger Test: Compare recognition error on the current cartogram type against a non-contiguous version using the same matching questions.

fix

Fix the recognition failure

  • Replace the current cartogram type with a non-contiguous cartogram.
  • Keep regions in their geographic positions while preserving their original outlines.
  • If the chart also needs neighbor lookup, switch to a contiguous cartogram rather than keeping a non-contiguous one.

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