I'm a bit puzzled why this debate has opened up here given that it started
somewhere else: many readers will probably find it puzzling. This is a
lengthy post for which I apologise but it is written in good faith and in
the spirit of friendship.

Still, I've been asked a few questions and I'll respond and Jim do your best
to set aside the fact that th'art a Tyke until tha's supped some ale and
chewed t'cud wi't'twife or some such.

I am answering your questions out of order but logically, I think.

Firstly, you could have avoided the need to ask me to remove my file if
you'd asked me to show you the way and accepted more than you did. Moreover,
given the amount of work tutor2u does generate, I was at least providing
constructive solutions to my criticisms that could have eased your
resourcing burden a little.

I don't think I was being particularly exacting either to be honest:
particular yes but exacting no. As for the standards I am applying:

thick lines are a problem if the data does not accompany the graph and a
reader wants to try to derive the data ... it's difficult to be accurate
when faced with thick lines. When the graph is accompanied by the data and
it's an impression that is being created thick lines can be fine!

nothing wrong with using colour and I do it all the time. The problem I
raised with colour communications relates to readability at all times. My
laptop (high resolution) monitor just about picks out the problem graphs but
my desktop fails miserably. However, I think the real problem comes when
someone prints out the relevant graphs in black and white. Try it! Better to
use bold colours and/or shading, hatching and the rest to be sure.

I'm always wary of the academe v industry/real world comparisons since it
suggests a divide that is often not present. I skip between the two and
apply my standards consistently and don't find anyone asking me either to
dumb down or sharpen up.

broken axes are lethal when read by someone who's not alert. An excellent
example comes when trying to derive fixed costs from a total cost curve or
when trying to find the break even point ... graphically, that is. You'll
fail unless you start both axes at the origin. Similarly, draw a graph with
undeclared broken axes and you will create a false impression. The graphs I
used from the tutor2u resources I highlighted do demonstrate this point
clearly. It doesn't matter that the problem was caused innocently either
because the crime has still been committed! This is not pedantry either
since some of the world's biggest fraudsters have used dodgy graphs as they
ply their wares. That's not to say that tutor2u is trying to defraud anyone
at all of course but you can see the point.

copying from texts, web pages, newspapers ... is generally forbidden, along
the lines you wish, Jim. However, as Jocelyn has ably pointed out, it would
be exceedingly difficult for anyone to work on anything and draw conclusions
for others to share if they didn't copy some things sometime. Moreover,
here's a really useful link sent to me by a colleague recently that
illustrates the true position vis a vis the kind of things we are discussing
here:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.htm
l Another aspect here is that you insisted that I prove my points and when
trying to do so generally and without direct reference to your own work, you
said that 'you thought so': that I hadn't proven my points because I
couldn't! So I did and to do that I had to do what I did: otherwise I would
never have made any progress! I did fully acknowledge all sources in that
file, too so there is little doubt where the originals came from and I did
at no time claim that any of them were mine, apart from the ones that are of
course.

as far as copyright and its breach is concerned, too, Jim, can you say that
tutor2u is wholly innocent? Can you say that you don't breach others'
copyright yourselves? There seem to be a fair number of graphical images
dotted around your site that belong to others I think. If you've got
permission to use all of them, I hereby fully apologise for any slur on your
character as it is unintended: just a thought, that's all.

you are wrong about your sales growth chart: you have prepared a time series
graph and even though it shows that sales are increasing year by year it is
not a growth chart! Again, not semantics and not pedantry; and my revision
proved why I said what I said.

I don't know how damaging it has really been to tutor2u for me to have
prepared my file and uploaded it onto my site in the way that I have. I
haven't analysed my stats recently but I doubt that anywhere near a large
number of people have read and/or downloaded my file. I accept, however,
that some people may have reconsidered your work as a result of mine. Well,
my answer to that must be clear: you shouldn't shoot the messenger simply
because he's carrying a bad message!

I plastered that big stamp on the tutor2u graphs for your benefit and I have
to admit that one correspondent of mine did suggest that they were a bit
heavy! I did that because you said you'd had problems appreciating the
points I was making about which graphs were problematic and which weren't.
So I attempted to remove all doubt with that stamp. You were also quite
happy until that point that I provided you with some good links from me to
you, 'Google will love them', you said.

In any case, it was never my intention at any stage to create a rift since I
have been a teacher for many years now and my calling has always been to err
on the side of being helpful. I tried the same in this case and share with
you the desire to overcome our problems. I will revise my chartingissues
file as soon as possible as best I can bearing in mind that the points I
made are generally useful for academics and practitioners alike and as I
have said before at least two publishers/distributors have expressed their
liking for the materials I prepared. I will not leave that file to give the
impression that anyone is guilty of incompetence either.

Please receive this piece in the spirit in which it has been sent and all
will be well with the world!

Duncan


-----Original Message-----
From: Economics, business, and related subjects
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim Riley
Sent: 06 January 2005 20:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Another duncanwil.co.uk update

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