summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/pgf/text-en/pgfmanual-en-guidelines.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/pgf/text-en/pgfmanual-en-guidelines.tex')
-rw-r--r--Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/pgf/text-en/pgfmanual-en-guidelines.tex88
1 files changed, 31 insertions, 57 deletions
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/pgf/text-en/pgfmanual-en-guidelines.tex b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/pgf/text-en/pgfmanual-en-guidelines.tex
index 1b032e95779..9d7617d6c38 100644
--- a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/pgf/text-en/pgfmanual-en-guidelines.tex
+++ b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/pgf/text-en/pgfmanual-en-guidelines.tex
@@ -27,41 +27,22 @@ repeat them in the following guidelines.
The first thing you should ask yourself when someone presents a bunch of
guidelines is: Should I really follow these guidelines? This is an
important questions, because there are good reasons not to follow
-general guidelines.
-\begin{itemize}
-\item
- The person who setup the guidelines may have had other
- objectives than you do. For example, a guideline might say ``use the
- color red for emphasis.'' While this guideline makes perfect sense
- for, say, a presentation using a projector, red ``color'' has the
- \emph{opposite} effect of ``emphasis'' when printed using a
- black-and-white printer.
-
- Guidelines were almost always setup to address a specific
- situation. If you are not in this situation, following a guideline
- can do more harm than good.
-\item
- The basic rule of typography is: ``Every rule can be broken, as long
- as you are \emph{aware} that you are breaking a rule.'' This rule
- also applies to graphics. Phrased differently, the basic rule
- states: ``The only mistakes in typography are things done is
- ignorance.''
-
- When you are aware of a rule and when you decide that breaking the
- rule has a desirable effect, break the rule.
-\end{itemize}
-
-So, before you apply a guideline or choose not to apply it, ask
-yourself these questions:
-\begin{enumerate}
-\item
- Does this guideline really address my situation?
-\item
- If you do the opposite a guideline says you should do, will the
- advantages outweigh the disadvantages this guideline was supposed to
- prevent?
-\end{enumerate}
-
+general guidelines. The person who setup the guidelines may have had other
+objectives than you do. For example, a guideline might say ``use the
+color red for emphasis.'' While this guideline makes perfect sense
+for, say, a presentation using a projector, red ``color'' has the
+\emph{opposite} effect of ``emphasis'' when printed using a
+black-and-white printer. Guidelines were almost always setup to
+address a specific situation. If you are not in this situation,
+following a guideline can do more harm than good.
+
+The second thing you should be aware of is the basic rule of
+typography is: ``Every rule can be broken, as long as you are
+\emph{aware} that you are breaking a rule.'' This rule also applies
+to graphics. Phrased differently, the basic rule states: ``The only
+mistakes in typography are things done is ignorance.'' When you are
+aware of a rule and when you decide that breaking the rule has a
+desirable effect, break the rule.
\subsection{Planning the Time Needed for the Creation of Graphics}
@@ -93,8 +74,7 @@ together with the main text is a difficult, lengthy process.
\item
Treat graphics as first-class citizens of your papers. They deserve
as much time and energy as the text does.
-\item
- Arguably, the creation of graphics deserves \emph{even more} time
+ Indeed, the creation of graphics might deserve \emph{even more} time
than the writing of the main text since more attention will be paid
to the graphics and they will be looked at first.
\item
@@ -111,7 +91,6 @@ together with the main text is a difficult, lengthy process.
\end{itemize}
-
\subsection{Workflow for Creating a Graphic}
When you write a (scientific) paper, you will most likely follow the
@@ -202,9 +181,7 @@ follow the following guidelines when creating standalone figures:
hand, I have not yet seen any hard evidence that abbreviations slow
readers down. On the other hand, abbreviating all ``Figure'' by
``Fig.''\ is most unlikely to save even a single line in most
- documents.
-
- I avoid abbreviations.
+ documents. I avoid abbreviations.
\end{itemize}
@@ -230,7 +207,6 @@ section would be written in a different font at a different size. In
some sections all theorems would be underlined, in another they would
be printed all in uppercase letters, and in another in red. In
addition, the margins would be different on each page.
-
Readers and editors would not tolerate a text if it were written in
this fashion, but with graphics they often have to.
@@ -267,7 +243,7 @@ following guidelines:
Creating consistency when using different graphic programs is almost
impossible. For this reason, you should consider sticking to a single
-graphic program.
+graphics program.
\subsection{Labels in Graphics}
@@ -321,14 +297,9 @@ default settings of programs like \textsc{gnuplot} or Excel are to
blame for this since these programs make it very convenient to create
bad plots.
-The first question you should ask yourself when creating a plot is the
-following:
-\begin{itemize}
-\item
- Are there enough data points to merit a plot?
-\end{itemize}
-
-If the answer is ``not really,'' use a table.
+The first question you should ask yourself when creating a plot is,
+Are there enough data points to merit a plot? If the answer is ``not
+really,'' use a table.
A typical situation where a plot is unnecessary is when people present
a few numbers in a bar diagram. Here is a real-life example: At the
@@ -354,7 +325,9 @@ A simple way of summing up this information is the following table:
\bigskip
What the lecturer did was to visualize the data using a 3D bar
-diagram. It looked like this:
+diagram. It looked like this (except that in reality the numbers
+where typeset using some extremely low-resolution bitmap font and
+were near-unreadable):
\bigskip
\par
@@ -406,7 +379,6 @@ Sadly, the graphic does not allow us to answer \emph{a single one of these
one. In essence, the information density of the graphic is very
nearly zero. The table has a much higher information density; despite
the fact that it uses quite a lot of white space to present a few numbers.
-
Here is the list of things that went wrong with the 3D-bar diagram:
\begin{itemize}
\item
@@ -585,8 +557,8 @@ that I redrew from a pie chart in \emph{Die Zeit}, June 4th, 2005:
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
-This graphic has been redrawn in \tikzname, but the original looks very
-similar.
+This graphic has been redrawn in \tikzname, but the original looks
+almost exactly the same.
At first sight, the graphic looks ``nice and informative,'' but there
are a lot of things that went wrong:
@@ -642,7 +614,9 @@ are a lot of things that went wrong:
stands out most because of the brighter color. However, for this
chart ``Erdgas'' is not really important at all.
\end{itemize}
-Edward Tufte calls graphics like the above ``chart junk.''
+Edward Tufte calls graphics like the above ``chart junk.'' (I am happy
+to announce, however, that \emph{Die Zeit} has stopped using 3D pie
+charts and their information graphics have got somewhat better.)
Here are a few recommendations that may help you avoid producing chart junk:
\begin{itemize}
@@ -717,7 +691,7 @@ Here is a non-exhaustive list of things that can distract readers:
\end{tikzpicture}
\medskip
- Even though the left grid comes first in our normal reading order,
+ Even though the left grid comes first in English reading order,
the right one is much more likely to be seen first: The
white-to-black contrast is higher than the gray-to-white
contrast. In addition, there are more ``places'' adding to the