What I can't do with an XY Scatter chart is have it be a Column chart
Other than that, yes, XY Scatter seems golden.
So as I understand your suggestion my data will plot right if I reorganize
it to look like this (and use the dates to define the x-axis, the first
column of integers as Series1, and the second colum of integers as Series2):
1/1/2004 1 22
1/3/2004 3
1/4/2004 5
1/5/2004 44
1/7/2004 7 66
I tried this and it works great with an XY Scatter and the other types of
charts as well! Wonderful to have a non-XY-Scatter chart display the data
accurately for a change
Unfortunately however, some people don't have authority to change their
layouts. I do in this case, but I'm sure I won't always.
In my case I can't reorganize my layout this way for another reason. In the
examples, your layout is marginally more complex than mine, but in real life
for my data your layout would be unmanageable as an entry point for data --
and I'm not faulting you here of course -- you have no way to know what my
real-life data looks like.
That said, inherent in the reorganization you suggested is a tendency toward
unmanagability for lots of folks. I'll try to explain why this is so for
anyone reading who has the same problem as me who doesn't see it...
A lot of spreadsheets keep track of events as they occur, such as
expenditures of funds or accumulation of whatever quantities.
When an event occurs, the date, an item that implies distinction between
series such as a person's name or the reason for the expenditure, and perhaps
5 quantities are entered, which means 7 columns in total for example.
Each time an even occurs, a new row is added. Most anyone looking at the
data can understand it quickly and enter the data in the correct cells,
probably with no need to scroll horizontally which, let's face it, confuses a
lot of people.
See how that layout corresponds nicely to the two columns in my initial
example?
DATE DATA
1/1/2004 1
1/3/2004 3
1/4/2004 5
1/7/2004 7
1/1/2004 22
1/5/2004 44
1/7/2004 66
Note that there is a third implied column in my example that differentiates
between the series. I took a shortcut and used single-digit data versus
double-digit data to distinguish between the series, but that isn't likely to
happen in reality.
So with that implied column spelled out, my simple initial example looks
like this:
DATE DATA SERIES_IDENTIFIER
1/1/2004 1 S1
1/3/2004 3 S1
1/4/2004 5 S1
1/7/2004 7 S1
1/1/2004 22 S2
1/5/2004 44 S2
1/7/2004 66 S2
(S1 is what makes the data belong in Series1, and S2 is... you get it.)
See how that looks a lot like my event-tracking example now? Just add 4 more
columns like the one titled DATA and it's a perfect match. Maybe we should
call the data columns D1, D2, D3, D4, and D5.
If the layout is changed to make columns distinguish between different
series like this:
DATE S1D1 S2D1
1/1/2004 1 22
1/3/2004 3
1/4/2004 5
1/5/2004 44
1/7/2004 7 66
(Column S1D1 contans the first quantities recorded for Series1 and column
S2D1 contains the first quantities recorded for Series2.)
....And then the data plots correctly.
Remember when the first simple example layout was fleshed out to match the
event-tracking example by adding 4 columns of data? To flesh out this new
layout, 8 columns of data must be added: S1D2, S2D2, S1D3, S2D3, S1D4, S2D4,
S1D5, and S2D5. So you see one dimension of potential unmanageability
inherent here. The other dimension is when more series are needed.
In the first layout if you need to plot 10 series, what do you do?
DATE DATA SERIES_IDENTIFIER
1/1/2004 1 S1
1/3/2004 3 S1
1/4/2004 5 S1
1/7/2004 7 S1
1/1/2004 22 S2
1/5/2004 44 S2
1/7/2004 66 S2
Record values like S3, S4, S5 ... S10 in the SERIES_IDENTIFIER column and
the total number of columns remains 3 (or remains 7 in the case of 5 data
columns).
In the second layout if you need to plot 10 series, what do you do?
DATE S1D1 S2D1
1/1/2004 1 22
1/3/2004 3
1/4/2004 5
1/5/2004 44
1/7/2004 7 66
Add columns like S3D1, S3D2, S4D1, S4D2... and the total number of columns
becomes 11 (or becomes 51 in the case of 5 data columns). Of course with all
the empty cells and longer column names, readabilty/manageability suffers.
So readers I'm sure can see that with few types of data and few series the
second layout with the columns doing double-duty keeping track of the data
and keeping track of series works fine (with the added bonus of the chart
actually plotting the data in a way that a human being would expect and
interpret as correct) but with more types of data and more series the layout
can get out of hand.
Anyway, what was I going to say?
Oh, yeah. Thanks very much Jon. I'm sure half of the future readers with my
problem will be able to use your suggested layout and leave happy.
I'm sure many times I'll be able to use that suggestion too, or Tushar's,
but alas, I won't be able to use it this time, so my question becomes:
Is there any way to get 3 series in sync with the x-axis using a
non-XY-Scatter chart without changing the basic layout of my data?
-Nathan