space (perhaps because they were transferred in that form from a spreadsheet, which gives the row numbers an uneven appearance. By contrast, Table 7.2
has full and complete labels, in clear fonts, which give all the missing information, and avoid unnecessary abbreviation. Even
the row labels are tidied up,
eliminating the ugly ampersand signs (&), which are not needed, and printing each label within a single row.
Decimal points, index numbers and details in the data numbers.
Table 7.1 does not tell readers exactly what measurement units are being used in fact they are the numbers of eye cataract operations per 1000 population.
This gives large numbers,
stretching from 21,727 at the low end to 72,331 at the high end. They are made less readable by not putting in commas to separate the thousands, and also by citing the numbers correct to two decimal points. Given the data range in Table including any decimal points at all is a ludicrous level of detail:
no reader would conceivably need to know this, so the decimal
points are just clutter, obfuscating whatever the table’s message is supposed to be. By contrast, Table 7.2 eliminates all decimal points and goes further by rebasing the index number to cataract operations per 100,000 people. Most readers will find it 6 AUTHORING AP H D
Share with your friends: 
