Different graph types may differ in their suitability to support group comparisons, due to the underlying graph schemas. This study examined whether graph schemas are based on perceptual features (i.e., each graph type, e.g., bar or line graph, has its own graph schema) or common invariant structures (i.e., graph types share common schemas). Furthermore, it was of interest which graph type (bar, line, or pie) is optimal for comparing discrete groups. A switching paradigm was used in three experiments. Two graph types were examined at a time (Experiment 1: bar vs. line, Experiment 2: bar vs. pie, Experiment 3: line vs. pie). On each trial, participants received a data graph presenting the data from three groups and were to determine the numerical difference of group A and group B displayed in the graph. We scrutinized whether switching the type of graph from one trial to the next prolonged RTs. The slowing of RTs in switch trials in comparison to trials with only one graph type can indicate to what extent the graph schemas differ. As switch costs were observed in all pairings of graph types, none of the different pairs of graph types tested seems to fully share a common schema. Interestingly, there was tentative evidence for differences in switch costs among different pairings of graph types. Smaller switch costs in Experiment 1 suggested that the graph schemas of bar and line graphs overlap more strongly than those of bar graphs and pie graphs or line graphs and pie graphs. This implies that results were not in line with completely distinct schemas for different graph types either. Taken together, the pattern of results is consistent with a hierarchical view according to which a graph schema consists of parts shared for different graphs and parts that are specific for each graph type. Apart from investigating graph schemas, the study provided evidence for performance differences among graph types. We found that bar graphs yielded the fastest group comparisons compared to line graphs and pie graphs, suggesting that they are the most suitable when used to compare discrete groups.

Different graph types might differ in group comparison due to differences in underlying graph schemas. Thus, this study examined whether graph schemas are based on perceptual features (i.e., each graph has a specific schema) or common invariant structures (i.e., graphs share several common schemas), and which graphic type (bar vs. dot vs. tally) is the best to compare discrete groups. Three experiments were conducted using the mixing-costs paradigm. Participants received graphs with quantities for three groups in randomized positions and were given the task of comparing two groups. The results suggested that graph schemas are based on a common invariant structure. Tally charts mixed either with bar graphs or with dot graphs showed mixing costs. Yet, bar and dot graphs showed no mixing costs when paired together. Tally charts were the more efficient format for group comparison compared to bar graphs. Moreover, processing time increased when the position difference of compared groups was increased.

Counts of Part I committed in San Mateo County from 1985 on. This dataset also includes Part II crimes from 2013 on.

Part I crimes include: homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny-theft, and arson. These counts include crimes committed at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), Unincorporated San Mateo County, Woodside, Portola Valley, San Carlos from 10/31/10 forward; Half Moon Bay from 6/12/11 forward; and Millbrae from 3/4/12 forward.

Part II crimes do not include San Francisco International Airport (SFO) cases and is an estimate only. An estimate is required because there are no specific data types used when keying in Type II crime types. Therefore, Records Manager judgment is used.

The global bar graph displays market is anticipated to experience remarkable growth in the coming years, driven by increasing demand from various end-user industries. The market size was valued at USD XXX million in 2025 and is projected to reach USD XX million by 2033, exhibiting a CAGR of XX% from 2025 to 2033. This growth can be attributed to factors such as technological advancements, rising demand for visual data representation, and increasing adoption in sectors like electronics, medical, and aerospace. Among the key segments, the LED and LCD display types are expected to witness significant growth, owing to their superior brightness, clarity, and energy efficiency. The major regions driving the market include North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. North America holds a dominant market share, with the United States being a notable contributor. The Asia Pacific region is projected to grow at a higher rate during the forecast period, driven by the rapidly expanding electronics and semiconductor industries in countries like China, India, and Japan. Key players in the bar graph displays market include akYtec, Everlight Electronics, Kingbright, Sifam Tinsley, and Texmate, among others. These companies are focusing on innovation, strategic partnerships, and geographical expansion to enhance their market presence.

This horizontal bar chart displays companies by company type using the aggregation count in Burbank. The data is about companies.

This horizontal bar chart displays companies by revenue type using the aggregation count in Brasília. The data is about companies.

Ceramic building material quantification data by context type for Illus. 5.23.

The County of San Mateo subscribes to Nextdoor, a social networking site based on where participants live: https://nextdoor.com/. This data shows participation in Nextdoor by area, posts, categories and date. No post content is shared in this dataset.

The dataset includes demographic information setting forth the number of filings made by business entities with the Department of State’s Division of Corporations. Such filings are categorized by type and filer.

This bar chart displays companies by revenue type using the aggregation count in Burbank. The data is about companies.

This bar chart displays companies by revenue type using the aggregation count in Wilmington. The data is about companies.

The "CountiesStatesInfo" feature layer is a component of the "Pollinator Restoration 2022" map which is itself a component of the "USFWS Pollinator Restoration Projects Mapper" which is a dashboard showing management projects that benefit pollinators across the Western U.S. See below for a description of the "USFWS Pollinator Restoration Projects Mapper."The "USFWS Pollinator Restoration Projects Mapper" is under development by the Region 1 (Pacific Northwest) USFWS Science Applications program. Completion is anticipated by Winter 2023. Contact: Alan Yanahan (alan_yanahan@fws.gov).The purpose of the "USFWS Pollinator Restoration Projects Mapper" is to inform future pollinator conservation efforts by providing a way to identify geographic areas where additional pollinator conservation may be needed.The "USFWS Pollinator Restoration Projects Mapper" maps the locations of where on-the-ground projects that are beneficial to pollinators have taken place. Its primary focus is projects on public lands. The majority of records included in this tool come from internal databases for the USFWS, US Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management, which were queried for relevant projects. The tool is not intended as a database for reporting projects to. Rather, the tool synthesizes records from existing databases.The geographic scope of the tool includes the western states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.When possible, the tool includes projects from 2014 to the present. This timespan was chosen because it matches the timespan of the USFWS Monarch Conservation Database For consistency, the tool groups pollinator beneficial projects into the following four activity types:Restoration: Actions taken after a disturbance, such as planting native forbs after a wildfireMaintenance: Actions taken outside the growing season that maintain habitat quality through regular disturbance using manual or chemical means. Examples: mowing, spraying weeds, prescribed fireConservation: Acquiring land or creating easements that are managed for biodiversityEnhancement: Actions that increase forb diversity and nectar resources, such as planting native milkweedThe tool includes a map that aggregates project point locations within 49 square mile sized hexagon grid cells. Users can click on individual grid cells to activate a pop-up menu to cycle through the projects that occurred within that grid cell. Information for each project include, but are not limited to, acreage, type of activity (i.e., restoration, maintenance, conservation, enhancement), data source, and lead organization.The tool also includes a dashboard to view bar graphs and pie charts that display project acreages and project number based on location (i.e., state), project activity type (i.e., restoration, maintenance, conservation, enhancement), data source, and management type. Data can be filtered by data source, activity type, and year. Data filtering will update the map, bar graphs, and pie charts.

This horizontal bar chart displays sites by category using the aggregation count in the United States. The data is about sites.

This horizontal bar chart displays companies by revenue type using the aggregation count in Norway. The data is about companies.

This horizontal bar chart displays employees (people) by revenue type using the aggregation sum in Barbados. The data is about companies.

This horizontal bar chart displays public companies by revenue type using the aggregation count. The data is filtered where the company is Apple. The data is about companies.

This bar chart displays companies by revenue type using the aggregation count in Lacombe. The data is about companies.

This horizontal bar chart displays companies by company type using the aggregation count in Dearborn. The data is about companies.

This horizontal bar chart displays companies by company type using the aggregation count in Athens. The data is about companies.

This bar chart displays companies by revenue type using the aggregation count in Brasília. The data is about companies.