Zdeňka Kolářová

• Zdeňka Kolářová 1 Jun 2026 10:21 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: david_reinstein’s comment on: Plant-based al­ter­na­tives’ mar­ket share and taste-com­pa­ra­bil­ity: Ma­ture enough to jus­tify study­ing sub­sti­tu­tion pat­terns, price-re­sponses, and welfare im­pli­ca­tions?

  I was thinking maybe something like this − 1 extra bar with full scale and guiding lines capturing the proportion:
  10 %
  Scale: 0--------|______________________________________________________________________|
  . .
  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  ↓ ↓
  Group A: 0------------------------------------------------________________________________|
  Group B: 0--------------------------------------------------------________________________|
  
  
  Or even just a down-open horizontal curly bracket (“top curly bracket”) above the charts:
  
  10 %
  &#9182; <---HTML code of the top curly bracket symbol
  Group A: 0------------------------------------------------________________________________|
  Group B: 0--------------------------------------------------------________________________|

• Zdeňka Kolářová 28 May 2026 12:17 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Plant-based al­ter­na­tives’ mar­ket share and taste-com­pa­ra­bil­ity: Ma­ture enough to jus­tify study­ing sub­sti­tu­tion pat­terns, price-re­sponses, and welfare im­pli­ca­tions?

  Hi, some feedback on the visual side of the figures:
  The scaling feels really strange when a value 6-7 % shows as a ~70% piece of the total, especially given that later on, a value of 32 % is shown as ~85% piece of the total.

  Only the last graph seems to actually be scaled to 100 % at the total.

  I think the first two would be clearer with a full-scale reference bar and “zoom-in” indication that the following ones display a smaller percentage as their total.
  And I’d say the third one has big enough values to scale to 100 %.