One of my pet peeves is misleading charts and graphs. While not intentionally misleading, this chart is pretty sloppy [1].
Apple's 64% looks closer to 75%, because nine percent of the market is just plain excluded from the chart. Another issue is that Google's five percent is smaller than Zune's three percent.
I don't understand how an editor can let something like this get through, even if it's only incidentally related to the story. If it takes some random jerk on the internet a few seconds to se something is wrong with the chart, surely they are cutting corners? It undermines my confidence in the other information they are providing.
Do you actually think this is an intentionally "misleading" chart? One of MY pet peeves are people NOT in the reporting business unable to accept that minor errors DO occur on the way to press when on deadline. Cutting corners? Please. It happens to the best of reporters/editors/graphics people.
"> While not intentionally misleading, this chart is pretty sloppy
I agree, I don't think this chart is intentionally misleading. From my experience, minor errors do happen, even to the best of reporters/editors/graphics people. Sometimes a chart with known problems will be pushed out for the sake of a deadline, just as it would in software."
Apple's 64% looks closer to 75%, because nine percent of the market is just plain excluded from the chart. Another issue is that Google's five percent is smaller than Zune's three percent.
I don't understand how an editor can let something like this get through, even if it's only incidentally related to the story. If it takes some random jerk on the internet a few seconds to se something is wrong with the chart, surely they are cutting corners? It undermines my confidence in the other information they are providing.
[1] http://i.imgur.com/ImN07.png