Duncan
As two head-strong Tykes, I suggest we are going to have to agree to
disagree about what constitutes a "fundamental error" when it comes to
the "science" of charting. For example:
- My view about what constitutes acceptable thickness of lines on a chart
obviously differs from yours. If there is a "scientific" rule about the
minimum and maximum thickness of line (which presumably there is), I'm not
prepared to follow it religiously for the sake of the odd pixel or two. I
like the lines on our charts. You can see which way they go. They look
bold (you might even say -exciting and sexy?)
- My (new TFT 21 inch) monitor can see a chart with a white or light grey
background ok; yours cannot see these backgrounds so well. Sorry. But no-
one has complained about this before. I think our house style is ok.
Besides, we like to bring a bit of colour into people's lives, rather than
encouraging them to see things simply in black and white
- I dont insist on broken axes when they are not essential; you clearly
prefer them to be used more frequently, and thats fine. But there is no
unbreakable rule about broekn axes. When our charts try to illustrate the
fundamental issue of "volatility", then I agree with your point. But the
charts in question were not, I believe. They were intended to show how the
absolute level of base rate and exchange rate had changed over the time
period. We thought that a chart in the Economics UK Economy Update 2005
achieved this better than an overly long table.
- I'm happy to quote the overall source for a chart rather than provide the
fullest possible details (in the interest of keeping a chart uncluttered).
If we inadvertently miss a source from the odd chart, then its a fair cop.
I suppose we produce maybe four or five thousand charts and tables each
year. The odd gap is bound to slip through. Hardly a crime that merits a
public flogging of our free Economics UK Economy Update 2005.
- I think that a chart that aims to illustrate how the absolute value of a
company's sales has grown over 5 years can legitimately be sub-
titled "Sales Growth: 1999-2003"; Our chart on HolidayBreak sales does
exactly what it says on the tin. We would have used a chart like your
alternative version if we had wanted to show what the percentage sales
growth in each year had been. I suspect we would have sub-titled
it "Percentage Sales growth 1999-2003", or something similar. But dont
quote me on that - the Tutor2u Chart Sub-Titling Sub Committee will need to
meet to discuss that :-)
We'll keep doing things our way, no matter flawed you think are standards
are. In truth, we are a small publishing business with neither the
resources nor expert ability to meet your exacting standards in everything
that we do. Your publication has undoubtedly damaged our fledgling
business. But we'll move on regardless.
Finally, I don't object to your making observations (however critical) of
our resources. What I'm less happy about is the unauthorised and illegal
copying/reproduction of our copyrighted and trademarked materials in your
publication titled "ChartingIssues.pdf" on your website. Such practice is
a bad example for students. Please could I ask you to remove that material
from your file as soon as possible,
Jim
|