On Jun 5, 2:02 pm, merr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> In article
<c5dbd041-1700-4f30-a172-ce42bd5ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
>
>
> Dan <lueck...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On Jun 4, 6:30 pm, merr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Ethan Merritt) wrote:
[...]
>
> >> Of course there are specific cases that call for some other layout,
> >> but it is rare to see horizontal histograms.
Note the phrase "rare to see"
>
> >This sort of thing is not at all rare in newspapers and
> >magazines, or indeed any publication where page
> >layout conventions trump scientific conventions.
Note the phrase "not at all rare".
>
> Surely you are not appealing to newspaper/magazine standards
> as a touchstone for the presentation of scientific data!
Clearly, the point I made was that they are not "rare to see",
considering all the things even we "scientists" might see.
I also *thought* it was clear that what I said was something
of a put-down ("layout... trumps... science..."? I hardly think
so.)
So, removing my tongue from my cheek: No, I don't think
that newspapers and magazines standards should guide our
presentation of scientific data.
I do, however think there are cases where a vertical axis
for the independent variable can be the best choice for
scientific presentation. And even scientists may have to
write for magazines and newspapers on occasion. In those
cases, fitting the graph to the layout could conceivably
make the entire presentation better.
Dan
|
