Excel Elbow Grease: How to Fool Excel into Making (Pretty Much) Any Chart You Want

11,355 views

Published on

Presentation given at the 2013 American Evaluation Association conference in Washington, DC.

An audio recording of slides 77-94 is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hP0yDMRxVc&feature=c4-overview&list=UUu0waUz-GtZzeRQunEHSj_g

Published in: Technology, Business
3 Comments
17 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
11,355
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7,237
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
3
Likes
17
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Here’s an example. Audience interaction: How’d I make this? Which chart type is the skeleton for my timeline?[It’s a timeline disguised as a bar chart; with invisible bars]
  • [AUDIENCE INTERACTION: Pause for Squint Test]
  • Behind the scenes
  • Excel Elbow Grease: How to Fool Excel into Making (Pretty Much) Any Chart You Want

    1. 1. How to fool Excel into making (pretty much) any chart you want Ann K. Emery @annkemery Innovation Network
    2. 2. http://en.paperblog.com/traveleat-georgetown-cupcakes-inwashington-dc-309307/
    3. 3. http://en.paperblog.com/traveleat-georgetown-cupcakes-inwashington-dc-309307/
    4. 4. In all four cohorts, about half of the economics teachers felt the content was at a higher level than their previous coursework. “The economics content presented in the seminar was at a higher conceptual level than my earlier coursework or study of economics.” Agree Strongly Agree Cohort A (n=98) Cohort B (n=100) Cohort C (n=100) Cohort D (n=100) 22% Neutral 22% 26% 22% 25% 30% 35% Strongly Disagree Disagree 25% 22% 35% 27% 21% 6% 20% 13% 9% 10% 5% 19% 6%
    5. 5. 1 2 3 4
    6. 6. 1 2 3 4 The Squint Test
    7. 7. The Squint Test
    8. 8. In all four cohorts, about half of the economics teachers felt the content was at a higher level than their previous coursework. “The economics content presented in the seminar was at a higher conceptual level than my earlier coursework or study of economics.” Agree Strongly Agree Cohort A (n=98) Cohort B (n=100) Cohort C (n=100) Cohort D (n=100) 22% Neutral 22% 26% 22% 25% 30% 35% Strongly Disagree Disagree 25% 22% 35% 27% 21% 6% 20% 13% 9% 10% 5% 19% 6%
    9. 9. Remove Add Border Grid lines Tick marks Gap width Data labels Category labels Custom colors Headline or reduce or emphasize
    10. 10. Edward Tufte edwardtufte.com
    11. 11. Stephanie Evergreen stephanieevergreen.com
    12. 12. 1 2 3 4 Two charts in one
    13. 13. Coalition Members' Perceptions Coalition A Coalition B Basic Functioning and Structure 93% 70% Ability to Learn from the Community 90% 59% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 88% 50% Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions 83% 47% Coalition Leadership 80% 47% Reputation and Visibility 64% 39% Sustainability 59% 39% Overall 80% 50%
    14. 14. Basic Functioning and… Ability to Learn from the… Ability to Develop Allies and… Ability to Cultivate and… Coalition A Coalition Leadership Coalition B Reputation and Visibility Sustainability Overall 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    15. 15. Basic Functioning and Structure Ability to Learn from the Community Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions Coalition A Coalition B Coalition Leadership Reputation and Visibility Sustainability Overall 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
    16. 16. Basic Functioning and Structure Ability to Learn from the Community Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions Coalition A Coalition B Coalition Leadership Reputation and Visibility Sustainability Overall 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    17. 17. Basic Functioning and Structure Ability to Learn from the Community Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions Coalition A Coalition B Coalition Leadership Reputation and Visibility Sustainability Overall 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    18. 18. 93% Basic Functioning and Structure 70% 90% Ability to Learn from the Community 59% 88% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 50% 83% Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions 47% Coalition A 80% Coalition Leadership Coalition B 47% 64% Reputation and Visibility 39% 59% Sustainability 39% 80% Overall 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    19. 19. 93% Basic Functioning and Structure 70% 90% Ability to Learn from the Community 59% 88% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 50% 83% Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions 47% 80% Coalition Leadership 47% 64% Reputation and Visibility 39% 59% Sustainability 39% 80% Overall 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    20. 20. Basic Functioning and Structure Coalition A Coalition B 93% 70% 90% Ability to Learn from the Community 59% 88% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 50% 83% Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions 47% 80% Coalition Leadership 47% 64% Reputation and Visibility 39% 59% Sustainability 39% 80% Overall 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    21. 21. Basic Functioning and Structure Coalition A Coalition B 93% 70% Ability to Learn from the Community 90% 59% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 88% 50% Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions Coalition Leadership 83% 47% 47% Reputation and Visibility 64% 39% Sustainability 80% 39% Overall 59% 80% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    22. 22. Basic Functioning and Structure Coalition A Coalition B 93% 70% Ability to Learn from the Community 90% 59% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 88% 50% Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions Coalition Leadership 83% 47% 47% Reputation and Visibility 64% 39% Sustainability 80% 39% Overall 59% 80% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    23. 23. Basic Functioning and Structure Coalition A Coalition B 93% 70% Ability to Learn from the Community 90% 59% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 88% 50% Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions Coalition Leadership 83% 47% 47% Reputation and Visibility 64% 39% Sustainability 80% 39% Overall 59% 80% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    24. 24. 93% Basic Functioning and Structure Coalition A 70% Coalition B 90% Ability to Learn from the Community 59% 88% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 50% 83% Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions 47% 80% Coalition Leadership 47% 64% Reputation and Visibility 39% 59% Sustainability 39% 80% Overall 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    25. 25. Coalition A scored higher than Coalition B across all 7 sections of the assessment. Basic Functioning and Structure Coalition A Coalition B 93% 70% Ability to Learn from the Community 90% 59% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 88% 50% Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions 83% 47% Coalition Leadership 80% 47% Reputation and Visibility 64% 39% Sustainability 59% 39% Overall 80% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    26. 26. Coalition A scored higher than Coalition B across all 7 sections of the assessment. Coalition scores on the Coalition A Coalition B Coalition Assessment Basic Functioning and Structure Tool: Coalition A Coalition B 93% 70% Ability to Learn from the Community 90% 59% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 88% 50% Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions 83% 47% Coalition Leadership 80% 47% Reputation and Visibility 64% 39% Sustainability 59% 39% Overall 80% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    27. 27. Coalition A scored higher than Coalitions B and C across all 7 sections of the assessment. Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool: Coalition A Basic Functioning and Structure Coalition B Coalition C Ability to Learn from the Community 59% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions 47% Coalition Leadership 55% 39% 33% 59% 50% 0% 20% 80% 64% 39% 38% Sustainability 77% 78% 83% 47% 47% Reputation and Visibility 90% 88% 50% Overall 93% 70% 68% 40% 80% 60% 60% 80% 100%
    28. 28. Coalition A scored higher than Coalitions B, C, and D across all 7 sections of the assessment. Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool: Basic Functioning and Structure Coalition A Coalition B Coalition C Coalition D 57% 90% 59% Ability to Learn from the Community 65% Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions 47% Coalition Leadership 78% 75% 83% 47% 47% 45% 55% 53% 80% 64% 39% 38% 41% Reputation and Visibility Sustainability 33% 77% 88% 50% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 93% 70% 68% 59% 39% 45% 80% 50% Overall 60% 55% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    29. 29. Coalition A scored higher than Coalition B across all 7 sections of the assessment. Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool: Coalition A (n=32) Coalition B (n=29) 93% Basic Functioning and Structure 70% 90% Ability to Learn from the Community 59% 88% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 50% 83% Ability to Cultivate and Develop… 47% 80% Coalition Leadership 47% 64% Reputation and Visibility 39% 59% Sustainability 39% 80% Overall 0% 25% 50% 75% 50% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
    30. 30. Coalition A scored higher than Coalitions B and C across all 7 sections of the assessment. Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool: Coalition A (n=32) Coalition B (n=29) 93% Basic Functioning Ability to Learn 88% Champions 25% 50% 38% 39% 33% 39% 80% 0% 47% 47% 59% Overall 55% 47% 64% Sustainability 78% 50% 80% Reputation and Visibility 77% 59% 83% Coalition Leadership 68% 70% 90% Allies and Partnerships Coalition C (n=34) 75% 60% 50% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
    31. 31. Participants increased their knowledge Knowledge is increasing. after completing the program. Distribution of pre test and post test scores: 40% 30% 30% 17% 20% Pre test scores 10% (78 participants) 3% 20% 19% 7% 4% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 27% 30% 20% Post test scores 10% 7 35% 40% (77 participants) 6 2% 5% 7% 12% 12% 0% 1 0-4 2 5-9 3 10-14 4 15-19 5 20-24 6 25-29 # of test questions answered correctly (out of 34 total questions) 7 30-34
    32. 32. Nonprofits are more likely to use quantitative evaluation practices than qualitative practices. Percentage of nonprofits using each evaluation practice: Qualitative Practices Quantitative Practices 81% 64% 79% Compiling Statistics Case Studies 51% 63% 28% 50% 49% Medium orgs Large orgs 32% 87% Feedback Forms Internal Tracking Forms 18% 43% 87% 24% Focus Groups 76% 13% 65% 38% Interviews Small orgs Medium orgs Large orgs Small orgs
    33. 33. 1 2 3 4 Invisibility
    34. 34. http://www.portachi.com/archives/3905
    35. 35. http://www.portachi.com/archives/3905
    36. 36. Coalition A scored higher than Coalition B across all 7 sections of the assessment. Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool: Coalition A (n=32) Coalition B (n=29) Basic Functioning and Structure 93% Ability to Learn from the Community 90% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 88% 70% Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions 83% Coalition Leadership Reputation and Visibility Sustainability Overall 80% 64% 59% 50% 47% 47% 39% 59% 39% 80% 50%
    37. 37. Coalition A scored higher than Coalition B across all 7 sections of the assessment. Coalition scores on the Coalition Assessment Tool: Coalition A (n=32) Coalition B (n=29) Basic Functioning and Structure 93% Ability to Learn from the Community 90% Ability to Develop Allies and Partnerships 88% 70% Ability to Cultivate and Develop Champions 83% Coalition Leadership Reputation and Visibility Sustainability Overall 80% 64% 59% 50% 47% 47% 39% 59% 39% 80% 50%
    38. 38. Two charts in one (2 bar charts) Invisible bars (1 stacked bar chart)
    39. 39. Participants were generally satisfied— 85% would recommend the program to a friend. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. (n=100) Strongly agree Agree I'd recommend this program to a friend. 50% 35% I learned a lot in this program. 45% This program exceeded my expectations. 8% 7% 30% 30% Strongly Disagree disagree 25% 15% 10% 25% 20%
    40. 40. Cole Nussbaumer storytellingwithdata.com
    41. 41. 1 2 3 4 Exploit the stock chart types
    42. 42. Milestone Milestone Milestone
    43. 43. 2-2005 3-2005 5-2005 9-2005 10-2005 12-2005 3-2006 7-2006 10-2006 11-2006 1-2007 1-2007 6-2007 9-2007 12-2007 12-2007 2-2008 3-2008 4-2008 4-2008 4-2008 5-2008 5-2008 6-2008 6-2008 8-2008 3-2009 3-2009 4-2009 9-2009 12-2009 1-2010 8-2006 9-2005 4-2007 8-2007 12-2006 12-2007 12-2006 6-2009 3-2011 3-2011 12-2007 6-2008 12-2008 9-2009 12-2009 6-2011 10-2008 12-2008 3-2009 1-2009 10-2009 4-2009 5-2009 12-2008 3-2009 11-2008 6-2010 3-2011 9-2010 8-2010 4-2010 12-2011 7-2010 7-2010 7-2010 10-2010 10-2010 12-2010 3-2011 7-2011 7-2011 10-2011 10-2011 1-2012 1-2012 4-2012 7-2012 7-2012 7-2012 9-2012 9-2012 9-2012 9-2012 1-2013 1-2013 1-2013 2-2013 2-2013 4-2013 4-2013 4-2013 4-2013 7-2013 7-2013 11-2010 1-2011 12-2012 10-2011 2-2012 12-2013 9-2012 6-2012 12-2013 9-2013 9-2013 12-2013 12-2013 3-2013 12-2012 6-2013 6-2015 12-2012 12-2012 1-2013 12-2012 6-2013 12-2014 12-2014 5-2013 2-2014 6-2013 9-2013 9-2013 9-2013 12-2013 6-2014
    44. 44. The Foundation has supported immigration reform through 64 grants over the past 8 years. Length of grant awards: Core Support Detention and Democracy Project Electronic Policy Network Web Portal Evaluating the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Immigrant Rights Responding to Anti-Immigrant Ballot Initiatives General Support Immigration Policy Research and Dissemination Protecting the civil and human rights of new and non-citizens Gulf Coast Recovery and Rebuilding Follow-on Support Strategic Planning Implementation Evaluating the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Accessing Immigrant Rights through the Media National Immigrant Justice Center - Follow-on support Protecting the Legal Rights of Immigrants National Convening of Funders We Are America Alliance Action Fund Executive Director Search Wave of Hope Campaign Immigration Policy Center – Planning Grant Multicultural Leadership for Sound Public Policy Elm City ID Card Core Support We Are America Alliance Action Fund Non-partisan Voter Mobilization Four Pillars Campaign for Immigration Reform: Embedded Evaluation Four Pillars Campaign for Immigration Reform - Field and Policy Pillars Four Pillars Campaign for Immigration Reform: Communication Support Strategic and Business Planning Pilot Project: Engaging Latino Voters Enacting Immigration Reform: 2010 Campaign Support Reform Immigration for America Campaign ENTRES NOS: Moms for Family Unity Campaign Immigration: The Changing Face of America Renewal-Cross programme grant RHR & Ageing: Business Plan Implementation Support New Leaders for America Project Immigration, Criminalization, and Parental Rights Immigration Reform: Communication Support Detention, Democracy and Due Process Reform Immigration for America Women Advocates for Women Immigrants Immigrants' Rights Project Core Support Protecting the Rights of Immigrants Turning the Tide Final Core Support Core Support Cuentame: Voter project Interim Immigration Strategy Reform Immigration for America, (RIFA) Interim Immigration Strategy Promise Arizona in Action Training Immigrant Rights Activists Safe Communities Campaign Latino Voting and Immigration Institute United We Dream Action Network Alliance for Citizenship Protecting Immigrant Rights Promise Arizona in Action General Support Alliance for Citizenship Evaluating U.S. Immigration Reform Securing Immigration Reform 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
    45. 45. Advocacy Strategy Matrix
    46. 46. Policy Analysis/Research Influencer Education Policymaker Education Public Education Media Advocacy Communications and Messaging Model Legislation Public Forums Public Polling Coalition Building Public Awareness Campaigns Demonstration Programs Community Mobilization Champion Development Regulatory Feedback Advocacy Capacity Building Community Organizing Leadership Development Public Will Campaigns Political Will Campaigns Voter Outreach Litigation 90 81 71 63 36 36 29 27 22 25 25 23 22 21 20 11 11 7 3 2 1 0
    47. 47. ACTION WILL AWARENESS Outcomes Community Mobilization 18 Community Organizing 10 Public Will Campaigns 3 Advocacy Capacity Building 9 Leadership Development Voter Outreach 6 1 Public Awareness Campaigns 21 Public Polling 22 PUBLIC Coalition Building 21 Media Advocacy 36 Communications and Model Legislation 29 Regulatory Feedback 14 Champion Development 15 Political Will Campaigns 1 Messaging 36 Public Forums 27 Demonstration Programs 18 INFLUENCERS Audiences DECISION MAKERS
    48. 48. ACTION WILL AWARENESS Outcomes Community Mobilization 18 Voter Outreach 1 Community Organizing Public 10 Will Campaigns Advocacy 3 Capacity Building Leadership Development 9 6 Public Awareness Campaigns 21 Public Polling 22 Public Education 63 PUBLIC Coalition Building 21 Media Advocacy 36 Communications and Messaging 36 Demonstration Programs 18 Model Legislation 29 Regulatory Champion Feedback Development 14 15 Political Will Campaigns 1 Public Forums 27 Policy Analysis/Research 90 Influencer Education Policymaker Education 81 71 INFLUENCERS Audiences DECISION MAKERS
    49. 49. Jon Schwabish policyviz.com
    50. 50. Student Before After Student A 35% 55% Student B 48% 63% Student C 63% 76% Student D 80% 92% Student E 82% 96% Student F 85% 98%
    51. 51. All 6 students improved after completing the reading program. Student reading scores before and after the program: 85% Student A Before reading program After reading program 82% Student B 80% Student C 63% Student D 48% Student E 35% Student F 0% 20% 98% 96% 92% 76% 63% 55% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    52. 52. 85% 85% 82% 82% 80% 80% 63% 63% 48% 48% 35% 35% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    53. 53. Our eyes are drawn to the end of the “bars.” 85% 82% 80% 63% 48% 35% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    54. 54. Our eyes are drawn to the end of the “bars.” 85% 82% 80% 63% 48% 35% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    55. 55. Before program 85% 82% 80% 63% 48% 35% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    56. 56. Before program Student A 85% Student B 82% Student C 80% Student D Student E Student F 0% 20% 63% 48% 35% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    57. 57. Before program Student A 85% Student B 82% Student C 80% Student D Student E Student F 0% 20% 63% 48% 35% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    58. 58. Before enrolling in the reading program, scores ranged from 35% to 85%. Student reading scores before enrolling in program: Before program Student A 85% Student B 82% Student C 80% Student D Student E Student F 0% 20% 63% 48% 35% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    59. 59. Before enrolling in the reading program, scores ranged from 35% to 85%. Student reading scores before enrolling in program: Before program Student A 85% Student B 82% Student C 80% Student D Student E Student F 0% 20% 63% 48% 35% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    60. 60. Before enrolling in the reading program, scores ranged from 35% to 85%. Student reading scores before enrolling in program: Before program Student A 85% Student B 82% Student C 80% Student D Student E Student F 0% 20% 63% 48% 35% 40% 60% 80% 100%
    61. 61. All 6 students improved after completing the reading program. Student reading scores before and after the program: Before After program program Student A 85% Student B 82% Student C 80% Student D Student E Student F 0% 20% 35% 40% 63% 48% 98% 96% 92% 76% 63% 55% 60% 80% 100%
    62. 62. All 6 coalitions increased their capacity over the course of the grant. Coalition Assessment Tool scores after Years 1 and 2: Year 1 Coalition A Year 2 85% 98% Coalition B 82% Coalition C 80% 63% Coalition D Coalition E Coalition F 0% 20% 35% 40% 48% 96% 92% 76% 63% 55% 60% 80% 100%
    63. 63. Coalition members rated themselves more highly than the external TA providers. Coalition member vs. TA provider coalition ratings: TA Coalition Providers Members Coalition A 85% Coalition B 82% Coalition C 80% 63% Coalition D Coalition E Coalition F 0% 20% 35% 40% 48% 98% 96% 92% 76% 63% 55% 60% 80% 100%
    64. 64. Coalition capacity is promising. Each represents one coalition member’s ratings on the Coalition Assessment Tool. 30 Number of coalition members (n=100) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0-9% 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-89% 90-100%
    65. 65. Nobody scored their coalitions below 20% 30 Number of coalition members (n=100) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0-9% 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-89% 90-100%
    66. 66. Only 18 people scored their coalitions below 60% 30 Number of coalition members (n=100) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0-9% 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-89% 90-100%
    67. 67. 69 people gave ratings between 60 and 89% 30 Number of coalition members (n=100) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0-9% 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-89% 90-100%
    68. 68. 13 people rated their coalitions above a 90% 30 Number of coalition members (n=100) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0-9% 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-89% 90-100%
    69. 69. emeryevaluation.com
    70. 70. http://en.paperblog.com/traveleat-georgetown-cupcakes-inwashington-dc-309307/
    71. 71. # thumbs up viz
    72. 72. How to fool Excel into making (pretty much) any chart you want Ann K. Emery @annkemery Innovation Network

    ×