Graph Quality
Abominable graphs 2
More graphical woe
This graph
is problematical since the horizontal log scale has cycles of a factor of 100, but the divisions are based on a factor of 10. Such a blatant mathematical inconsistency is, to say the least, distracting to the reader. The title should be voltage vs. frequency, not the other way around. The labels are similarly reversed. The label "linear" is not appropriate since linearity was not tested.
This graph has particularly ludicrous FORTRAN notation on the horizontal scale. The densely packed numbers are rotated so that the reader has to exert extra strain to attempt to read the FORTRAN. The two zeroes at the left of the scale, presumably due to round-off, are distracting and painful. Use of six "significant" digits is distracting and painful. Switching between FORTRAN and normal text is an added distraction.
The vertical axis would benefit from use of units kPa to reduce the number of zeroes.
This is an image of computer card, with a ruler to show the scale. These cards were used to record FORTRAN statements by punched holes to be made in the card; one short line of text per card. The program was recorded on a stack of these cards, submitted for batch processing, and retrieved the next day. In 1965 there was no computer graphical interface. Even so, published articles and books did not use the crude FORTRAN notation. Instead, since humans rather than computers are the audience, proper scientific notation was used. Some software writers today have lost sight of the fact that humans read reports, articles, and books, hence abominable graphs, tables, and description of numbers. Rather than 5.00E-05 use scientific notation (5 x 10-5) or Greek prefixes such as k for kilo, M for mega, n for nano, p for pico.
Top