<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- generator="MovableType/3.34" -->
<rss version="0.92">
  <channel>
    <title>Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science: Surface vs. Contour Plots for the Presentation of Three-Dimensional Data</title>
    <link>http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2008/03/surface_vs_cont.html</link>
    <description>Chris Zorn sends along this. A rare paper about graphics that offers data as well as opinion!...</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <item>
      <title>Surface vs. Contour Plots for the Presentation of Three-Dimensional Data</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Chris Zorn sends along &lt;a href=&quot;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1099052&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;.  A rare paper about graphics that offers data as well as opinion!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2008/03/surface_vs_cont.html</link>
    </item>
        <item>
     <title>Sergei Dorn</title>
     <description>&lt;p&gt;Except that the contour and the surface for the linear case don't match (the contour plot seems to be upside-down)... Which leads to the very strange results obtained in this case with the students subjected to the surface outperforming those having the contour. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In this experiment, it's obviously easier to read the values on the contour plot. I am wondering what the results would have been with an improved display for the surface plots (colors, Y-scale directly on the surface, etc.) . &lt;/p&gt;</description>
     <link>http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/001615.html#548962</link>
     </item>
        <item>
     <title>Hadley</title>
     <description>&lt;p&gt;I would have thought that the obvious comparison would be between contour plots and image plots (i.e. where z-position is mapped to colour).  &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Testing the ability of students to accurately decode values on the graphic is a good start, but that's not really the purpose of a graphic.  It would be interesting to see a similar experiment performed on more gestalt-based questions - i.e. how many peaks are there, is the surface smooth or rough etc.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
     <link>http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/001615.html#549299</link>
     </item>
        <item>
     <title>C. Zorn</title>
     <description>&lt;p&gt;Sergei:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Wow.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;You're right.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;*smacks forehead*&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I'd better fix that...&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
     <link>http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/001615.html#549431</link>
     </item>
        <item>
     <title>Bill Harris</title>
     <description>&lt;p&gt;There's always &quot;true&quot; 3-D: see slide 20 of http://facilitatedsystems.com/weblog/sdforcheapskates.beamer.pdf (simple to do in J).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
     <link>http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/001615.html#549585</link>
     </item>
        <item>
     <title>Phil</title>
     <description>&lt;p&gt;I give up: how do I see the paper?  I can read the abstract (as 332 other viewers have apparently done) but clicking &quot;Go to Download Document&quot; gets me no joy, and the icon says the paper has been downloaded &quot;0 times&quot; so I guess I'm not the only one with a problem.  Yet, Sergei was apparently able to get it.  I guess I have failed a simple IQ test.  Sigh.  Well, it's not the first time. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
     <link>http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/001615.html#549631</link>
     </item>
        <item>
     <title>C. Zorn</title>
     <description>&lt;p&gt;It's not available because...well...I pulled it.  I'll repost once I fix the mistake that Sergei so helpfully pointed out.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
     <link>http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/001615.html#549874</link>
     </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>