• [object Object]@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    I would prefer a table if I needed the figures that I could use. A bar chart is for a quick comparison by its very nature, and the left one suggests that the Toyota is using four times less fuel than the Honda.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Toyota is using four times less fuel than the Honda.

      Only if you didn’t read the figure. Which is the point. A car person would never make that mistake.

      And I promise, in figure making, we are almost always adjust axis to represent the range of the data. It would be ridiculous not to. It would be a waste of real-estate for any journal or paper. If you are writing a Science paper, you get 5 figures, total. You have to do as much with them as you can. There are plenty of times when we might only adjust in 1/2 of a dimension, but usual its the whole

      • [object Object]@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Thanks for admitting that you make useless charts on which the reader has to read the figures anyway. Hopefully there comes a time when you realize you should’ve just used tables instead.

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          admitting that you make useless charts

          I mean, if the referees with literally decades of experience doing science communication have a problem with them, I’ll change them. I have never had to because I have a basic understanding of what makes a good figure.