<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nightingale&#8217;s Rose</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dd.dynamicdiagrams.com/2008/01/nightingales-rose/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dd.dynamicdiagrams.com/2008/01/nightingales-rose/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ian</title>
		<link>http://dd.dynamicdiagrams.com/2008/01/nightingales-rose/comment-page-1/#comment-789</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:07:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dd.dynamicdiagrams.com/?p=428#comment-789</guid>
		<description>Thanks for these notes; the graphics are beautifully constructed. We came across your work whilst developing material of a similar theme for our project on understanding uncertainty. See http://understandinguncertainty.org/ . The data for &#039;Diagram of the Causes of Mortality in the Army in the East&#039; was published by Nightingale in &#039;A contribution to the sanitary history of the British army during the late war with Russia&#039; (1859). This data can be found on a table at http://understandinguncertainty.org/node/214 . We used this data to replicate Nightingale&#039;s graphs, and the resulting charts resembled her original chart and the chart shown in the Economist article. So we believe that Nightingale&#039;s original diagram is correct. Please describe the source of your data that makes you think otherwise!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for these notes; the graphics are beautifully constructed. We came across your work whilst developing material of a similar theme for our project on understanding uncertainty. See <a href="http://understandinguncertainty.org/" rel="nofollow">http://understandinguncertainty.org/</a> . The data for &#8216;Diagram of the Causes of Mortality in the Army in the East&#8217; was published by Nightingale in &#8216;A contribution to the sanitary history of the British army during the late war with Russia&#8217; (1859). This data can be found on a table at <a href="http://understandinguncertainty.org/node/214" rel="nofollow">http://understandinguncertainty.org/node/214</a> . We used this data to replicate Nightingale&#8217;s graphs, and the resulting charts resembled her original chart and the chart shown in the Economist article. So we believe that Nightingale&#8217;s original diagram is correct. Please describe the source of your data that makes you think otherwise!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hadley</title>
		<link>http://dd.dynamicdiagrams.com/2008/01/nightingales-rose/comment-page-1/#comment-520</link>
		<dc:creator>Hadley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:14:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dd.dynamicdiagrams.com/?p=428#comment-520</guid>
		<description>How about a line chart instead of the final bar chart?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How about a line chart instead of the final bar chart?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henry Woodbury</title>
		<link>http://dd.dynamicdiagrams.com/2008/01/nightingales-rose/comment-page-1/#comment-60</link>
		<dc:creator>Henry Woodbury</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dd.dynamicdiagrams.com/?p=428#comment-60</guid>
		<description>hstern, excellent points. As it happens, Piotr prepared several alternative bar charts, including one that corresponds to your recommendation. I didn&#039;t want to overburden the initial post with all of them, but in response to your comment I think an update is appropriate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hstern, excellent points. As it happens, Piotr prepared several alternative bar charts, including one that corresponds to your recommendation. I didn&#8217;t want to overburden the initial post with all of them, but in response to your comment I think an update is appropriate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hstern</title>
		<link>http://dd.dynamicdiagrams.com/2008/01/nightingales-rose/comment-page-1/#comment-59</link>
		<dc:creator>hstern</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:02:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dd.dynamicdiagrams.com/?p=428#comment-59</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the clarification. I came upon your critique while surfing for sites that might support a workshop on spatial thinking and visual learning I am conducting next week.  I had already encountered the article from The Economist, and in the absence of Nightengale&#039;s data, I had doubted whether area was truly being represented.  You affirmed my suspicion, provided a corrected version and then provided a more appropriate modern version (albeit one not destined to become quite so famous). I wonder if the modern bar graph you provide could have its clarity improved.  The type you use in which all three categories are proportionally represented on a single bar for each month would be most appropriate if the total number of deaths per month was the figure of primary interest. However, it is the comparison between the three categories of death that matters most and using three separate bars for each month would lend both a clear comparison and much greater quantitative clarity for each category.  On the other hand, since Nightengale&#039;s purpose was primarily persuasion rather than presenting data simply for the sake of knowledge, by showing no separation between your bars and thereby running the colors together, the resultant massive area of blue compared to the other colors becomes quite persuasive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the clarification. I came upon your critique while surfing for sites that might support a workshop on spatial thinking and visual learning I am conducting next week.  I had already encountered the article from The Economist, and in the absence of Nightengale&#8217;s data, I had doubted whether area was truly being represented.  You affirmed my suspicion, provided a corrected version and then provided a more appropriate modern version (albeit one not destined to become quite so famous). I wonder if the modern bar graph you provide could have its clarity improved.  The type you use in which all three categories are proportionally represented on a single bar for each month would be most appropriate if the total number of deaths per month was the figure of primary interest. However, it is the comparison between the three categories of death that matters most and using three separate bars for each month would lend both a clear comparison and much greater quantitative clarity for each category.  On the other hand, since Nightengale&#8217;s purpose was primarily persuasion rather than presenting data simply for the sake of knowledge, by showing no separation between your bars and thereby running the colors together, the resultant massive area of blue compared to the other colors becomes quite persuasive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
