2007-07-02
Improving graphs
In Improving simple charts, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote a nice little summary how to produce “nicer” charts using R. However, in my opinion, the charts he provided as alternate options to the original, purely linear graph are less readable for the average person. If anything, using a logarithmic scale on the original Y axis (number of packages not built after a specific date) would be of use, but the other graphs only hide the original point of the post Dirk replied to (How old are our (Debian’s) packages?). The point was that 94% of all packages had been rebuilt since the release of Sarge or, if you want to put it the other way around, 1264 (6%) were built before Sarge was released. This relationship is hidden from immediate recognition by the reader of the graphs. I admit though, that Dirk’s second graph (Number of packages against age in days with the age being on y logarithmic scale) is also insightful. The other two graphs he presents might make sense in a scientific publication if some point in the “more detailed” areas of the graph needs proving, but for this specific problem, they really don’t make sense to me. Actually, I would question their use even in scientific publications, since they distort the original data a lot. Scientists are pretty much used to logarithmic scales these days, but I couldn’t work out how the scales work on those two graphs. And another note on the second graph (logarithmic age): The way the X axis is labeled (10, 20, 50, 100,..) is also pretty non-intuitive to me. I’m much more used to something like 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 and so on, which gives the same distance between each label and seems a lot more usable to me..
(edit: Fix spelling of Dirk’s surname)
See also Debian and Dunc-Tank
See also Microsoft Windows Vista – They did it all wrong
See also init script generators
Permalink

martin said,
July 2, 2007 at 20:43 UTC (+0000)
More importantly the original plots have text at the axis what’s ploted on what axis. I can’t even start to consider a plot that doesn’t have, to be better…