probably yes. I plotted each row individually instead. Thanks

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Deepayan Sarkar <deepayan.sarkar@gmail.com
> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:55 PM, David Winsemius <dwinsemius@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:51 PM, zhenjiang xu wrote:
> >
> >> I tried that. It seems the bar width is already maximized, although
> there
> >> is a lot of space between groups of bars. Thank you anyway.
> >
> > I apologize. It was reproducible code. I missed the "values" assignment.
> > There is also a box.width argument which does affect how the plot gets
> > drawn, but the effects do not appear salutory. It appears that the
> alignment
> > of the bars gets shifted relative to the labels. The barchart function
> > cannot seem to deal with the completity of the 2 * 5 factor crossed with
> a
> > c(3,3,4) factor. On the other hand that problem seems to be present in
> the
> > original plot as well. Maybe you should re-think the structure of the
> data?
>
> The problem is that levels is nested within factors:
>
> > xtabs(~levels + factors, a)
>                           factors
> levels                      Cycles MaxPairs Order
>  Cycle 1                       10        0     0
>  Cycle 2                       10        0     0
>  Cycle 3                       10        0     0
>  Cycle 4                       10        0     0
>  Order 1                        0        0    10
>  Order 2                        0        0    10
>  Order 3                        0        0    10
>  MaxPairs = 20                  0       10     0
>  MaxPairs = Average Length      0       10     0
>  MaxPairs = 500                 0       10     0
>
> I can't think of a meaningful design that would give the desired result
> here.
>
> -Deepayan
>



-- 
Best,
Zhenjiang

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

