3 ms·
If the data is 3d, no objection. If the data is 2d then a 3d plot is redundant, usually ugly and prone to mislead (see "How to lie with statistics" and anythin
by jjgreen 10y ago
If the data is 3d, no objection. If the data is 2d then a 3d plot is redundant, usually ugly and prone to mislead (see "How to lie with statistics" and anything by Tufte).
- cbjj 10y agoCould you explain "if the data is 3D"? Isn't it about how a presenter carves out the data for the presentation? To explain my pov, I see that even if a multi-dimensional dataset is available, people still prefer to present a 2-Dimensional analysis of it. And this is what I don't get. Is it due to the the lack of tooling or is it the fact that 2D graphs are just easier to grasp?
- jjgreen 10y agoI mean: the independent variable is 2d and the dependent is 1d, like f(x, y), that's 3d data. By 2d I mean a pie-chart, which you _can_ display in 3d (by making a "thick pie"), but it is superfluous and detracts from the data. I think 2d graphs are easier to graphs _are_ easier to grasp, and easier to make. Not sure tooling is the main issue, there's plenty of tools around to make 3d plots.