Graham S wants some advice on using Excel for technical and scientific
graphing.
Not to be too contrarian, but one option you might consider is stop drawing
graphs. Obviously your management does not consider high quality graphs as
being worth investing in.
This may sound like I am a traitor to
Shareef Siddeek wrote:
>
> Then, what is the use of EXCEL?
EXCELlent question...
Joking apart, it can be a useful tool for preparing a downloaded dataset
for loading into a statistics program.
-Robert Dawson
=
I
right way. This is because EXCEL is more popular and easy
to use. Cheers. Siddeek
David Heiser wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Shareef Siddeek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:53 PM
> Subject: Re:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Excel Graphics
Jon,
> The absolute best advice concerning the use of Excel for
> graphics (or for statistics for that matter) is: DON'T!
>
> The _majority_ of graph-types available in Excel should never
> be used for any pur
i think, if i might be allowed to speak for jon, he would say that it
is a good SPREADSHEET package ... that was what it was designed for ...
add ons to make it also a statistical package ... are a different matter
it is sort of like having ms word ... where it has this add on feature of
if you can use excel to do what you need doing and, it does not lead to any
serious (tweaking?) complications fine
but, what happens if you want one of your colleagues to do something a
little different ... like make a x,y plot ... where you have both male and
female data points separatel
Then, what is the use of EXCEL?
Siddeek
Jon Cryer wrote:
> The absolute best advice concerning the use of Excel for
> graphics (or for statistics for that matter) is: DON'T!
>
> The _majority_ of graph-types available in Excel should never
> be used for any purpose as they produce mislea
Jon,
> The absolute best advice concerning the use of Excel for
> graphics (or for statistics for that matter) is: DON'T!
>
> The _majority_ of graph-types available in Excel should never
> be used for any purpose as they produce misleading graphs -- mainly
> false third dimensions that can only
The absolute best advice concerning the use of Excel for
graphics (or for statistics for that matter) is: DON'T!
The _majority_ of graph-types available in Excel should never
be used for any purpose as they produce misleading graphs -- mainly
false third dimensions that can only serve to hide imp
Jay
> One piece of advice I received on this topic was: Use DeltaGraph. Even
> 4.0 (ca 1997) offers more options, and display control.
> Sorry if that isn't exactly what you were looking for
The problem, as always is money. Otherwise I agree that something like
Deltagraph is the solutio
One piece of advice I received on this topic was: Use DeltaGraph. Even
4.0 (ca 1997) offers more options, and display control.
Sorry if that isn't exactly what you were looking for
Jay
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but can anyone point me
> towar
Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but can anyone point me
towards any web sites that provide advice on using Excel for
technical/scientific graphing.
I am not sure why exactly, but I find the graphs produced by Excel,
compared to S-Plus or Statistica, to look out of place in a technic
12 matches
Mail list logo
