Number of countries

[annemariebrook]

Two small issues to ask about (feel free to separate into two issues if you prefer):

1. As Susan pointed out, it would be good to change the number of countries on the tile on the home page to the number of countries for which we have at least one data point. So instead of 222 countries, for v3.0 it would say 195 countries, and for v3.1 I'm not yet sure (as I haven't seen Chad's final count), but it will be at least 197.

• perhaps one complication of this, that you may have in mind, is that one may still want to show a complete count on pages like the "all countries" page. e.g. if i filter by East Asia, I might like to know that there are 19 countries in this region AND that 17 of them have at least some data. I don't have a particular view on what to do on these pages (i think they are actually fine just as they are). The main number I'd like to change is the one on the tile on the home page.

Moving the following to separate issue #140

2. When sorting by availability on the all countries page, I was trying to figure out how the algorithm works. The thing that seems weird is that some countries with, say, all five ESRs appear after some countries with only four ESRs. It appears the high-income countries are being 'placed' further ahead. But in some cases the differences are more extreme. e.g. Singapore (with only 2 ESRs) appears before several countries with four ESRs (including some high income countries with four ESRs). This isn't a big deal but does seem a little odd. I think it would be better just to have them ordered first by the number of bars that show up in the 13 rights view (and then sorted by name within each group). I think their income group should be irrelevant here.

[tmfrnz]

Yes, this is indeed tricky, especially when wanting to be consistent across pages.

However I so not think it is wrong to claim that we have data on 222 countries (as lack of information is also data). After all we have all 222 countries in the DB and it would be "more wrong" to state 197 (or whatever) and then actually have more countries to chose from.

Regardless, I would oppose having a different number on the landing page than on the country overview, at least without further explanation somewhere.

Again my suggestion is to just claim the full 222 as this is the number of countries we track

[annemariebrook]

OK. I don't think anyone in the HRMI team would claim to be tracking human rights in 222 countries. The other countries are there because they are countries (or territories) that exist in the world, and while an empty set is useful information, I don't think that would meet any of our definitions of 'data'.

My preference would be to change the landing page number to the number of countries for which we have at least one right score, and find a way to be consistent on the all-countries page, as i think that is the only page where there would otherwise be an inconsistency? . I like the way on the Rights pages it says "Scores available for xx countries". Would you be happy to also put that at the top of the all-countries page? Alternatively, we could provide both numbers at the top of the all countries page. e.g. "Scores available for 195 countries, out of 222 countries included in dataset". What do you think?

[tmfrnz]

Ok, will update the landing page accordingly.

I like your ideas for the country overview. How about we simply do:

• Main header: "All countries", could also say "All countries (and territories)"
• List header (unfiltered): "Scores available for 195 countries" (maybe we can get away with this without stating the full number in list)
• List header (filtered): "Showing scores for [xx] countries"

Likewise I would suggest to change the list header for the metric views when a filter is active to:

• List header (filtered): "Showing scores for [xx] countries"

[annemariebrook]

@tmfrnz - just wondering if you're ok to progress this issue this week? The 222 countries tile on the landing page is bothering Susan. Thank you!

I'm happy with your suggestions above for how to resolve it. i.e.

• Main header: "All countries", could also say "All countries (and territories)"
• List header (unfiltered): "Scores available for 195 countries" (maybe we can get away with this without stating the full number in list).
• List header for metrics view (filtered): "Showing scores for [xx] countries"

For v3.0 the number is 195 countries and territories and for v3.1 it looks as though the number will be 203.

Re: the countries and territories issue, i would keep it as 'all countries' in places where it is directing people to the all countries page (as in this case 'all countries' is just shorthand for 'all countries and territories'). For the header at the top of the page (once you get there) I think it would be good to be more precise. i.e. "Scores available for 195 countries and territories"

However, as soon as we start adding filters it gets a bit more complicated, as some groupings don't have any territories in them. To keep things simple i would use 'countries' only for any filtered count.

OK?

[tmfrnz]

@annemariebrook had a quick look at implementing this and some additional questions/comments regarding the country count in the list header.

Regarding unfiltered list

• I would not suggest to actually write the number of countries into the messages but instead pull it from the data (that way it will always be accurate)
• When calculating the "number of countries we have scores for", does this mean any available score, including indicator scores, or limited to those with rights scores (this may sometimes be the same)? Or should it maybe better even depend on the selected scale (categories/rights)?

Filtered list

• The "Showing scores for [xx] countries" could be a bit misleading as we may not actually be "showing" any scores for some countries, even if we have scores for them (imagine we are on "categories" scale or on HI standard). Maybe it should better say "Scores available for [xx] countries (filtered)" or "Scores available for [xx] countries (with current filters)"

[annemariebrook]

@tmfrnz, I agree that the number should be pulled from the data.

• the 'number of countries we have scores' for should refer to the rights scores (not indicators). On the all-countries page I would be happy for the number to depend on the selected scale. However, for the landing page I think it should be either (so 195 for v3.0 and 197 for v3.1).

For the filtered list on the metrics pages (rights and indicators), I was envisaging that the count would be the number of countries that are actually "showing" in the chart, so i'm not sure how it could be misleading. Can you provide an example?

[tmfrnz]

@tmfrnz, I agree that the number should be pulled from the data.

• the 'number of countries we have scores' for should refer to the rights scores (not indicators). On the all-countries page I would be happy for the number to depend on the selected scale. However, for the landing page I think it should be either (so 195 for v3.0 and 197 for v3.1).

For the filtered list on the metrics pages (rights and indicators), I was envisaging that the count would be the number of countries that are actually "showing" in the chart, so i'm not sure how it could be misleading. Can you provide an example?

I was only referring to the country overview, not the single metric page where we indeed only show countries we have scores for (for selected metric). On the country overview however we are

• often showing more countries (all countries or all countries matching the current filters) than countries we have scores for so and
• sometimes countries have scores but are not showing for the selected scale (categories/rights) or standard.

While ideally the item count in the list header should match the number of list items, again I think we can also get away with the list header describing a relevant subset.

Anyway, my suggestion would be to

• count the same way on front page and country overview page
• count countries we have at least one right score for (of any standard) (and on the country overview do not worry about the selected standard and scale)
• describe this correctly in the country overview list header, eg
  • unfiltered list: "Scores available for [xx] countries and territories"
  • filtered list: "Scores available for [yy] countries and territories (filtered)"
• use the same list headers for the single metric view (although here we could in theory correctly use "Showing scores for [xx] countries and territories" but I would prefer this to be consistent)

[annemariebrook]

Hi @tmfrnz, that makes sense and i am happy with your first three bullet point suggestions.

For the single metric view pages, I have a strong preference for "Showing scores for [xx] countries" as the count of scores 'showing' is useful for someone interested only in the countries showing for that indicator or right. (e.g. if they want to say that their country ranks 30th out of 84 countries - it is a pain if they have to count all 84 countries manually). I'd also prefer not to include "or territories' on the metrics pages, as in many cases (depending on the filter used) there won't be any territories showing. Let me know if you're ok with that. Thank you!

[tmfrnz]

Sounds good! In the future and once we have #117, we could even make the "or territories" depending on the countries' statuses

[annemariebrook]

Ah - that could be good :-) Thanks @tmfrnz !

[tmfrnz]

Hi @annemariebrook ,

Just implementing the new country count, however your preference of showing a different set of countries in the overview (all countries incl where data not present) than counting in the list header can produce non-sensical results, eg

So while I would strongly suggest to make this consistent by

• either not showing countries without scores in the overview list (thus similar to single metric lists)
• or also count those countries without scores for the overview list header and also the home page (I know you don't like this option)

...an alternative option would be to introduce a separate count for those countries without data on the overview page, eg by always introducing a small sub-header when such countries are present ,such as

[annemariebrook]

Thanks @tmfrnz. Personally, I am not very bothered by the example you provide. i.e. "Showing scores for 0 countries" while showing an empty set of scores for American Samoa. However, I understand that some people may find this jarring.

I also have no objection to your 'alternative solution' of providing a separate count of the countries showing that have no data e.g. "1 country without scores" in your example above. I would be very happy for you to go ahead and implement that idea. Thank you!

Just to be clear - i prefer your alternative solution to either of the bullet pointed suggestions. Thank you!

[tmfrnz]

This has now been deployed to our dev site for you to review. I have also made a small change to the text that you are welcome to edit here https://github.com/HumanRightsMeasurementInitiative/hrmi-dataportal/blob/country-numbers-138/app/translations/en.json#L870

(will also require translation)

[annemariebrook]

Thanks @tmfrnz. Looks good to me. Just checking: will this also be deployed to v3.0 (the live site)? I just need to know so i can advise Sarah where to add the translations. Thank you.

[tmfrnz]

@sarahbichan please add the translations on the feature branch "country-numbers-138" https://github.com/HumanRightsMeasurementInitiative/hrmi-dataportal/blob/country-numbers-138/app/translations/en.json#L870

[sarahbichan]

Translations have now been added to this branch.

[tmfrnz]

Excellent - thanks. I will now merge this both to master and v3.1 branches and deploy to v3.1 for review.