Home / Brinton, Willard C. Graphic Methods for Presenting Facts. New York: The Engineering Magazine Company, 1914. Internet Archive identifier: cu31924032626792 (Cornell University Library copy). The first American textbook on what we now call data visualization. / Passage

Graphic Methods for Presenting Facts

Brinton, Willard C. Graphic Methods for Presenting Facts. New York: The Engineering Magazine Company, 1914. Internet Archive identifier: cu31924032626792 (Cornell University Library copy). The first American textbook on what we now call data visualization. 307 words

The purpose of the chart was to show that in 1912 the farmers of the country raised more bushels of corn than in 1911 but received less total money in return. Note that the earlier year is placed at the right instead of at the left, and that the dates are given at the top rather than at the bottom. The middle group of bars corrects the error, but the information is still not as clearly brought out as it should be. The best way to bring out this information is to show that the number of bushels has increased while the number of dollars has decreased, and this is not clear from the middle drawing. In the right-hand presentation it is clearly seen that the bushels went up though the total value came down. The right-hand drawing follows the working of the average person's mind and it gains in clearness accordingly.

As a general rule dates should always be arranged to read from left to right, and columns of figures should be arranged with the column for the earher date at the left. A common exception is made, however, in the case of financial reports when it is desired to show the most recent year next to the various type-headings relating to

COMPARISONS INVOLVING TIME 45

«

earnings, expenses, etc., as in Fig. 50. In the case of financial reports it is always the latest year which is of chief interest, and for this reason the arrangement of Fig. 50 seems permissible in order that the figures and the account names may be side by side. The problem in Fig. 49 is so entirely different from that in Fig. 50, that the method of Fig. 50 cannot be held as a precedent to justify the reversed arrangement of dates shown at the left of Fig. 49.