3 ms·
If you really need to clip off the bottom of your bar graph for clarity, jagged lines do a wonderful job of explaining that instantly. I don't see the point of
by svachalek 13y ago
If you really need to clip off the bottom of your bar graph for clarity, jagged lines do a wonderful job of explaining that instantly. I don't see the point of a bar graph that doesn't start at 0 or indicate an omitted range, except to deceive.
- jowiar 13y agoThat's being too generous. NEVER clip off the bottom of your bar graph. Use something that isn't anchored to the axis - dots instead of bars which then put the focus on relative position. A bar draws the reader to comparing the relative length of the bar, so if "twice as long" doesn't mean "twice as much", it's terribly deceptive.
- eru 13y agoI see your point. Though how does your advice scale to logarithmic scales? (I.e. what's a general reason to allow logarithmic scales, but not affine ones?)
- crntaylor 13y agoIf you're using a logarithmic scale you shouldn't be using a bar chart, for the exact same reason as above - when you see bars, you naturally compare them on length. If the scale is logarithmic, then the form of the graph is in conflict with the data, and the graph becomes confusing. You should strive for every part of the graph to be in harmony and to repeat the same message. The following paper on lucidity in scientific communication has been a big influence on my thoughts. Briefly, the author stresses that you should aim for lucid pattern repetition over gratuitious variation, i.e. the repetition of the same idea communicated in similar ways, over variety for the sake of appearing to be superficially interesting. http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/papers/LHCE/lucidity-science-I.pdf http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/papers/LHCE/lucidity...
- forktheif 13y agoReally? How about if you're trying to show in detail a small change in a large number? If the scale started at zero, all bars would look equal.