Leonard Mada wrote:
Hi to everyone,
I have greatly expanded the wiki page:
Thanks a lot! This look great. Lots of links to get a visual impression
of the chart types.
*p-Values*
=======
One of the *most useful* informations present on a Chart which is way
to *often forgotten* describes the significance of the displayed
difference.
- a trivial difference (i.e. non-significant) might look frightening
big through mischoosing the axes
- while a real difference might be overlooked
This feature conveys really additional information (unlike some other
techniques, like voluminizing)!!!
This is undoubtedly useful information. But maybe we should consider the
VERY HIGH PRIORITY. Because actually it has no priority at all as you
are the first one to mention this. Again, not all people are doing
statistics with the chart. Many users will even not understand what this
is for.
IMPRESS
=======
Is this mailing list used to discuss Impress feature, too?
I have some more global comments and suggestions for Impress, too,
that are not easily covered with Bugzilla (and which would have great
impact on many aspects of Impress).
Yes, it is. Impress is also part of the graphics project.
--------------
Some comments on previous posts:
BTW: THERE IS NO REASON TO *SHOUT* HERE !!!!
I hope not to be misunderstood. It was and is NOT my intention to
shout. It is my intention to highlight very useful keywords.
This is a proven method. Some 90% of students highlight specific words
when learning (using some marker or pen). I did it myself when I was a
student, and now I am using it even more often when I read a
scientific article (and in my life I have read thousands of scientific
articles; I have more than 3000 articles on my PC). You do not have
always time to read everything accurately, and knowing which words are
particularly important is of great help.
Well, it is just commonly understood as shouting in e-mail. ("Typing in
all capital letters usually denotes screaming or yelling", see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette)
Besides, highlighting should not be necessary. I had a professor who
marked everything important in an article with a yellow marker. The
result was usually an almost completely yellow piece of paper. This
shows the good quality of the paper: it should not be necessary to
highlight important things, because having to highlight important things
implies that there are a lot of unimportant things.
BTW, sentences in capital letters are much more difficult to read (I
never understood why some EULAs are written in capital letters only,
maybe because nobody reads them anyway). This is also a proven fact (See
also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_letter)
At least I would refrain from using capital letters in headings on the
Wiki page. The headings are in bold-face and a larger font. This should
suffice to mark them as marking them "special" against the rest of the text.
You cannot be earnest, that a warning dialog pops up every time a
user choses a 3d type.
Well, my browser (SeaMonkey) also pops a warning dialog when I browse
a secure site. It is possible to disable the warning (check the "Don't
show me this anymore" box), so why should it be different in Chart.
People are unaware of scientific statistics and charting, so a little
more education for the users will in the end only make OOo more popular.
But this is a different thing. The SeaMonkey developers do not think
that secure sites are a bad thing, they just want to make users aware of
what that means ...
... the chef said: "Oh I wouldn't recommend that, take something else".
The chef didn't learn marketing. He should have said: "Our specialty
is ... (this). I would strongly recommend this one ... and so on,
surely NOT to say, don't take this. How does this apply here: of
course the warning should be drafted in such a way, that the user
understands that 3D is wrong and 2D offers great advantages, NOT that
just don't take 3D.
But that's exactly the problem I have: How can I explain a user that a
feature is "wrong" and still offer it to him. Besides I still don't see
why 3d charts are wrong. I agree that they might be misleading, and that
you should use them with care, but I don't see where they are wrong.
- very small values [proportions] are NOT easily displayed and NOT
easy to see [in pie charts]
Then don't use them.
I described there a general limitation of pie-charts. There are some
wokarounds (see points 6.h-6.i) dealing with this. There are other
workarounds. Try to display a proportion of "0" in a pie chart; it
simply won't work. Yet pie-charts are the most used chart for
proportions. So a brainstorming session to expand the pie-chart
concept for this situation is somehow needed.
Well pies in pies and bars in pies are a useful tool here. But most of
the times the solution is to just group small values together. In German
elections you have always 4-5 parties with different colors in a pie
chart, and all the other parties are just called "Others" and therefore
get a segment with mostly about 5%, so you can still see it. And
usually, nobody is interested in the exact numbers of the small parties.
And if you were, you could just create a new pie with only those parties.
I think there are much more important issues with pie charts, especially
the labeling: place labels in the middle or outside of segments, allow
to move them around and having little connectors between the numbers and
the pie segments.
Don't get me wrong: Your suggestions for scientific charts are very
welcome, just please don't demand removing features that are
important to other users.
I hope I didn't got wrong. It is NOT about removing, it is about
setting priorities.
Ok, agreed.
Regards,
Bjoern
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
