MS Excel files are fine for storing/retrieving data. Graphs and charts
are another matter. I rarely see default graphs and charts produced in
XL (or any package for that matter ) that look good. Editing XL graphs
in some way is a must, if one cares about quality of presentation;
however, exporting an XL graph to an editable format (e.g., EPS) will
not be a routine procedure for most users. Lack of the ability to
define the actual physical length of axes on graphs is also a major
disadvantage of XL.
Embedding XL graphs in other MS applications may work fine on screen
but can be a printing nightmare--perhaps this is the source original
rumor. Jean-Paul Liegeois made the point as well, the format
transmitted to the publisher is the key.
John Schumacher
On Thursday, Oct 24, 2002, at 09:07 Europe/London, Paul Jackson wrote:
> All,
> I have recently heard that MS Excel is not favoured by journals for
> data
> analyses or graph/chart preparation. As an ex-structural geologist who
> now
> trains IT, I wondered whether anyone could shed more light on the
> matter?
> I know that Excel 97 had some problems in some of the statistical
> functions
> but have never heard whether these were addressed in Excel 2000. I have
> certainly never heard that graphs/charts prepared in Excel were
> unacceptable for publication.
>
> Thanks for you time.
>
> Dr Paul Jackson
> Consultant (Training),
> Training & Information Co-ordination,
> IT Services,
> University of Wolverhampton,
> Wolverhampton WV1 1SB
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Dr. John C. Schumacher <[log in to unmask]>
Department of Earth Sciences
Wills Memorial Building Tel: +44 117 954 5417
Queens Road Fax: +44 117 925-3385
Bristol BS8 1RJ Tel. (Dept.) +44 117 954 5400
UK Web:
http://www.gly.bris.ac.uk/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|