Model of A Business Report

A Critique of the Colorado Agricultural Statistics Report 1985 Preliminary, 1984 Revised
Robert Sampron
November 14, 2007
A Critique of the Colorado Agricultural Statistics Report, 1985 Preliminary, 1984 Revised
iii
Table of Contents
Introduction, Background, and Audience The Front Matter
An Overview of the Report 11 The Main Title Page 12 The Commissioners Welcome Letter 14 Table of Contents 16
5 9
The Body
Prefatory Text Sections 23 Data Tables 24
21 29 33
Summary References
iv
Table of Illustrations
Figure 1 Colorado Agricultural Statistics Original Title Page Figure 2 Colorado Agricultural Statistics Revised Title Page Figure 3 Original Commissioners Welcome Letter Figure 4 Revised Commissioners Welcome Letter Figure 5 Original Table of Contents Figure 6 Revised Table of Contents Figure 7 Body Content and Format Figure 8 Original Data Table Figure 9 Revised DataTable Figure 10 Bar Graph Showing Same Information as in Figure 9 13 15 17 18 19 20 23 25 26 27
Introduction, Background, and Audience
Introduction
The Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) issues an annual report titled Colorado Agricultural Statistics (CAS). It is an accounting of the value of various commodities produced in the state for that year. The 1986 edition provided preliminary output statistics for 1985 and revised statistics for 1984. This paper critiques that edition. The CAS contains three sections: front matter, body, and back matter. The front matter contains four page elements: a map of the state, a Main Title Page, a Commissioners Welcome Letter, and a Table of Contents (TOC). The body also contains four page elements: introductory text sections for each commodity group and subgroup; data tables that index and summarize outputs; maps that show output distribution totals throughout the state; and bar graphs that illustrate the changes in outputs over time. The back matter contains an index. There is no appendix.
Background and Purpose

The background and purpose of the 1986 CAS was to give an accounting of statewide agricultural production for the following commodities: field crops; fruits, vegetables, and miscellaneous; prices and farm income; and livestock and poultry. The report also measured the year-to-year changes in gross outputs for each group and subgroup. Based on guidelines established by the federal government, data values for this edition were indexed to 1977.
The Documents Audience

One presumes that, because the data was gathered by the Federal-State Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, it was used by state and federal government agencies to plan agricultural policy for the coming years. Based on marketing needs and government subsidy policies, farmers likely used it to plan their activities. It is also presumed that the manufacturers of farm implements, chemicals, and supplies used it to create and market new and existing products.
The largest group to use this information is likely men. Their ages range from 25 to 65, with the largest concentration being from 35 to 60. This suggests that their eyesight is beginning to deteriorate, especially for printed text. They are likely to read the CAS indoors, under incandescent or flourescent light.
Purpose and Scope of the Critique

The purpose and scope of this critique is to comment on and suggest revisions for several aspects of the report. These include format, voice, grammar, and table design. Regardless of the documents different segments, page elements repeat throughout. As a result, one example was picked to represent others of a similar nature. From the front matter, critiques and revisions are offered for the Main Title Page, the Commissioners Welcome Message, and the Table of Contents. From the body, they are offered for one segment of prefatory text, one table of data, and for the use of graphs rather than tables to represent general data. For the back matter, none is offered.
The Front Matter
10
11
The Front Matter

An Overview of the Report
There is no question that the CDA could improve the report by changing its format, voice, grammar, and graphic design elements. This critique suggests how. The first task, however, is to deconstruct the report. The original dimensions for the report were 6 inches by 9 inches. This makes it appear cramped. It also appears as though it impacted the typesetters choice of font family, size, and type styles. With the exception of the Commissioners Welcome Letter, the typesetter used the same sans serif font throughout the report. Serifs are small stroke lines at the ends of letters and characters. They help to guide a readers eyes from one letter to another, as they do in this critique (Rude, 2006, p. 399). This makes printed text easier to read. For the prefatory text sections within the body, the font size appears to be about 8 points. For the table text, it appears to be about 5 points. The choices of page size, font family, and font size were likely based on the need to keep printing costs low. As the commissioner explains in his letter, this was the first time the state had to charge a fee for a copy of the report. Keeping the font size small allowed the CDA to print fewer pages at a lower printing cost. Even so, it is imperative that the type be easily read, which it is not. Also, it was not possible to publish the report online in 1986 as an alternative, because the World Wide Web was not yet available to the general public. The report looks cramped and gray, meaning the reader doesnt see a great deal of white space between lines of text or paragraphs (Parker, 2006, pp. 7475). Its visual hierarchy is also somewhat unclear. The best way to remedy its cramped appearance is to change page dimensions to 8.5 inches by 11 inches. This allows for the use of more white space, which makes the page look less gray. This also opens up pages to the use of more graphic design elements, other
12
than maps, tables, and bar graphs. More white space and graphic elements allow for the development of a stronger visual hierarchy. They also let a readers eyes rest when needed, while focusing attention on the text. By opening up the pages with additional white space, the typesetter could also use a larger font. Rather than use center alignment, he or she could move all titles flush-left. He or she could also use one sans serif font family for the headings, specific type styles within that family to establish a hierarchy of headings, and a serif font for body paragraph text (Parker, p. 52). Finally for the tables and bar graphs, he or she could use the same sans serif font used in the headings. By using these specific character and paragraph styles for repeating page elements, the typesetter could establish a firm visual hierarchy that better guides readers through the report.
The Main Title Page

The Main Title Page has a confusing visual hierarchy. Text is justified down the center, and information is chunked using similar groups of content, white space, font sizes, type styles, and alternating lines of capitalized and upper- and lower-case letters (Figure 1). The heading is set in all capital letters, and its type style is roman-bold. The subheading is capitalized, and its type style is condensed. The published by line has a smaller font size, and its type style is italic-regular. The departments name is in all capital letters, and its type style is roman-bold. Finally, the page includes the Colorado Statistics Services logo, and this is positioned to the left of its contact information. This chunking technique is fairly well known and accepted (Parker, pp. 227229). However, there are some inconsistencies in its use that create confusion about what some chunks mean. For example, except for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), all agency names are set in capital letters and bold-regular type style. It appears that the typesetter tried to mitigate this inconsistency somewhat by setting the reports header with a higher number of font points. Because it is not in a bold type style, however,
13
Figure 1 Colorado Agricultural Statistics Original Title Page
14
it appears as though the USDA is an entity of the state rather than federal government. Finally, it looks as though the typesetter used a table to format the commission members names. For the column on the left, text alignment is flush left. For the column on the right, alignment is flush right. It seems to be a reasonable choice, and it was used for the revision. The content on the page is fairly straightforward and requires no revision. Figure 2 shows the revised version. It includes the use of Arial Rounded MT bold font for the main heading, Arial Narrow-bold for the subheading, Verdana bold for the department titles, and a smaller font size for agency names. The typesetter could then use an italic type style for job titles and Arial Regular for personnel names and contact information.
The Commissioners Welcome Letter

The Commissioners Welcome Letter appears to be typed on agency letterhead (Figure 3). The font is likely Courier, which was fairly standard for typewriters of the time. There is full justification but no paragraph indentations. The text is arranged in block style. The blocks stop short of the right side of the page by several inches. Business and technical publications rarely use full justification anymore, though newspapers and magazines still do. The content explains the purpose of the report, including how its data was developed and why a fee was charged to obtain a copy. The commissioner also thanks those who provided data and offers a contact phone number for those who wish to make comments or ask questions. He mixes active and passive verb tenses throughout. In the first paragraph, he uses the word figures rather than data, when talking about statistics, and the plural verb tense show rather than shows. He likely used the wrong tense by confusing the word statistics, in the publications main title language, for the publication as a thing. As a thing, the publication is not a plural. In the second paragraph, the second sentence contains 41 words, and spacing between several is inconsistent. In the third paragraph, he makes a confusing stylistic choice by sub-
15
Colorado Agricultural Statistics

1985 Preliminary 1984 Revised
Published by
Colorado Department of Agriculture Timothy W. Schultz, Commissioner

406 State Services Building 1525 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203
Members of the Colorado Agricultural Commission Naioma Benson, Sterling Lee Mortensen, Northglenn Perry Christensen, Grand Junction Donald J Moschetti, Center Stephen Driftmier, Wheat Ridge John H. Thatcher Jr., Boone Ben Eastman, Hotchkiss John Young, Greeley Elton Miller, Fort Lupton Cooperating with
United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service
William E. Kibler, Administrator

Statistical Information Compiled by
Colorado Agricultural Statistics Service Charles A Hudson, Statistician in Charge Lance A. Fretwell, Assistant Statistician in Charge
2490 West 26th Avenue, Room 245 Denver, CO 80211
Bulletin 186
June 1986
Figure 2 Colorado Agricultural Statistics Revised Title Page
16
stituting the noun information, from the second paragraph, with publication. If one doesnt read this closely, one might miss their connection. Next, a passive verb tense causes the second sentence to emphasize the reports assembly and publication rather the politically logical subject, its accuracy, timeliness, and usefulness. The parallelism of the series is also off. Rather than accuracy, the commissioner should use accurateness. The final paragraph is one sentence long and contains a passive verb tense. Overall in terms of content and voice, the commissioner could emphasize the proper subjects and complements by using the active verb tense more often. Also, although the content is appropriate, it sounds falsely congenial. The revisions in Figure 4 include the use of Adobe Garamond Pro font, set at 12 points, and justified at flush left and ragged right. The first sentence of each new paragraph is indented. Text flows to a 1-inch margin on the right. These choices should make reading easier, because they create a stronger visual hierarchy. The typesetter should also continue to use this format throughout the report as part of a style sheet.
Table of Contents
As with any TOC, body text headings establish a hierarchy of categories (Figure 5). In this TOC, the hierarchy goes from general to specific. The first category is made up of Groups, and includes field crops; fruits, vegetables, and miscellaneous; prices and farm income, livestock and poultry, and an index. The next category is made up of Subgroups. The third category is undefined. The header is aligned down the centered, and its type is all capital letters and bold style. The Groups category is aligned flush left for the text and flush right for the page numbers, and its type is all capital letters and roman style. The Subgroups category is aligned like the Groups category. It is indented one em space to the right of Groups, and its type is upper- and lower-case letters and roman style. Finally, the undefined category is also aligned like Groups. It is indented one em space to the right of Subgroups, and its type is upper- and lower-case letters and roman style.
17
Figure 3 Original Commissioners Welcome Letter
18
Department of Agriculture
1525 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866 - 2811
State of Colorado
Richard D. Lamm Governor Timothy W. Schultz Commissioner Donald Rolston Deputy Commissioner
July 1986
Colorado Agricultural Statistics is a compilation of data that shows the important contributions made by the 27,000 farmers and ranchers living and working in Colorado. e Federal-State Crop and Livestock Reporting Service gathered the factual information used to create this edition. It reports preliminary data for 1985 and revises data for 1984. e lack of state funds to publish this book requires that, for the rst time, users pay a small fee to receive it. However, I believe the information contained in this book continues to make it a valuable resource tool for producers, members of the general public, and business people who wish to understand more about this complex industry. My personal thanks goes out to the many volunteers, including farmers, ranchers, and agri-businesses, who took the time necessary to provide the data used in this book. eir continued cooperation allows us to assemble and publish a statistical report that is accurate, current, and useful. Please direct your questions and comments about this publication to the Colorado Agricultural Statistics Service at (303) 964-0250. Sincerely,
Timothy W. Schultz Commissioner
Figure 4 Revised Commissioners Welcome Letter According to various references, the original format is acceptable (The Chicago Manual of Style, 2003; Rude, pp. 205 - 209). However, several changes can make the hierarchy more distinct. These include the use of different font families, alternative font sizes, screens (blocks of background color) for main category headings, and alignment by category for both text and page numbers. If the Commissioners Welcome Letter is placed after the TOC, the editor must include it in the TOC, with its page number character set as a Roman numeral. Figure 6 shows these revisions.
19
Figure 5 Original Table of Contents
20
Table of Contents
Colorados rank in agriculture Crop and livestock indexes; Land in farms 2 3 4 5 11 13 15
Field Crops
Principal crops; planted and harvested acreage Acreage, production and value Acreage and production by cropping practice 1985 crop review Value of crop production by district and county District and county estimates by crop:
Spring wheat Winter wheat Corn for grain Corn for silage Sorghum for grain Barley Oats Dry beans Sugar beets Hay crops 20 22 25 28 30 32 35 38 40 41
Potatoes; production and distribution Grain and hay stocks Wheat and barley varieties
48 49 52 54 55 56 58 59 60 61 62
Fruits, Vegetables, and Miscellaneous:
Fruits and vegetables1985 review Fruit production and value Vegetablesacreage, production, stocks, and value Onionsacreage, production, stocks, and value57 Floriculture Planting and harvesting dates Precipitation Fertilizer statistics Per capital consumption of food products
i
Figure 6 Revised Table of Contents
The Body
22
23
The Body
Prefatory Text Sections
The format for prefatory text sections, those that precede one or more data tables, repeats throughout the document (Figure 7). The headers are centered and set in all capital letters and bold text style. In the first paragraph of a section, the first sentence is always indented one em. In the remainder of the section, all paragraphs are fully justified to the left and right margins.
Figure 7 Body Content and Format These sections explain the nature of the data that follows in the tables, including how it was obtained and indexed to similar values from 1977. Throughout, the author frequently uses the passive verb tense and buries the main subject of many sentences. At times, he or she also uses an improper part of speech, making some sentences and paragraphs almost indecipherable. Here is an example from Figure 7:
These values are totaled by subgroups and groups which are divided by the comparable 1977 values to obtain the percent each year is of the base period.
If one carefully reads and deconstructs its syntax, one finds that the sentence explains how the statistician indexed the data. To explain the concept, the author tries and fails to
24
write a compound-complex sentence. A compound-complex sentence joins a dependent clause to two independent clauses (Rude, p. 178). This sentence, however, combines an independent clause (These values are totaled by subgroups and groups), a dependent clause (which are divided by the comparable 1977 values), and a prepositional phrase (to obtain the percent each year is of the base period). As bad as this construction is, the real problem is the use of the relative pronoun which as a kind of conjunction. Its function is unclear, and a comma should probably precede it. There is also a problem with the prepositional phrase. It doesnt explain for what the author is obtaining a percentage. As written, this run-on sentence is unclear and unacceptable. Given the reports general audience, it is inappropriate to use an equation here. The best way to correct the sentence is to rewrite it. The following is suggested:
To obtain the index percentage for a group or subgroups production output, total its output for the year. Then, multiply this total by its comparable value from 1977.
Data Tables
The data tables use a straightforward format (Figure 8). The title and units of measure are listed across the top. The items being compared are listed in row headers along the left column, also called the stub. The categories being compared are listed in column headers across the top. The data shows the points of intersection between the rows and columns. All column subheaders and data are centered. Due to space restrictions, some subheaders were hyphenated, though none were abbreviated. When designing a table, style manuals discourage the use of lines to separate rows and columns unless the table is very complex (Rude, pp. 205 - 209). Instead, the data or text within the columns are separated by white space. This should not overwhelm the table, however, because that would distract a readers eyes. A table may also be wider than the
25
text paragraphs that come before and after it. The CAS follows these rules, as well as those for headers, body, and cells. It does not follow the rules for title styles, however (The Chicago Manual of Style, p 496 - 522). To make the tables more consistent with the Chicago Manual, the author and editor should make several revisions. They should number the tables. Next, they should align each tables main title flush left and, for claritys sake, rewrite them in sentence form (p.500). They should separate the stub from column data with white space and not a line.
Figure 8 Original Data Table Though not required by the Chicago Manual, two more revisions could also make the tables easier to read. First, increase the font size. Second, rather than use second-level subheaders to explain the data, use text reference numbers and footnotes. Figure 9 shows an example. One question comes to mind when critiquing these tables. Is a table or graph the best too for presenting the data? This is best answered by considering both the data and the needs of the audience. The audience is bifurcated. Some are farmers. They are likely more interested in general information. It allows them to adjust farming methods to match environmental conditions and market opportunities. Some are government and business analysts. They need raw data to develop correlations, predict trends, and develop policies and marketing plans.
26
Table X. A comparison of the number, total amount of land, and average size of farms in Colorado and the United States, 19751985 Colorado United States
Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
1 2 3
Farms1 27,600 27,500 27,300 26,900 26,300 26,500 27,000 27,500 27,000 27,000 26,600
Land in Farms2 37,500 37,500 37,100 37,000 36,500 36,000 35,500 35,200 34,800 34,600 34,400
Average Size3 1,359 1,364 1,359 1,375 1,388 1,359 1,315 1,304 1,289 1,282 1,288
Farms1 2,521,420 2,497,270 2,455,830 2,436,250 2,423,300 2,423,510 2,433,920 2,400,550 2,370,200 2,328,400 2,284,630
Land in Farms2 1,059,420 1,054,075 1,047,785 1,044,790 1,044,015 1,038,885 1,034,190 1,027,795 1,024,195 1,019,378 1,015,583
Average Size3 420 422 427 429 428 427 425 428 432 438 445
The number of farms with annual sales of agricultural products of $1,000 or more. Per 1,000 acres. In acres.
Figure 9 Revised DataTable In general, people tend to better understand spatial relationships when presented visually. We can see changes better over time when they are expressed in line graphs (Rude, p. 328). We can also see size relationships better when they are expressed in bar graphs and pie charts. When considering the needs of each audience, the use of both tables and graphs seems appropriate. The farm-based audience will likely better understand the graphs. The policy-based audience will likely appreciate the data tables. Therefore, a good compromise is to place graphs in the body, for the general audience, and data tables in an appendix, for the policy-based audience. Figure 10 shows data from the column labeled Farms from Figure 9 plotted in a line graph.
27
Figure 10 Bar Graph Showing Same Information as in Figure 9
28
Summary
30
31
Summary
The Colorado Agriculture Statistics report for 1986 needs revisions throughout. The Main Title Page needs a stronger visual hierarchy, changing font family and type styles. The Commissioners Welcome Letter needs consistent use of the active voice. It also needs a more professional appearance, changing it from a typwritten to typeset letter. The Table of Contents also needs a stronger visual hierarchy, changing font family, type styles, and alignment and using screens. Though it requires format changes, the body needs more attention to content. The meaning of the text is often confusing. The editor must change its voice from past to present tense and use the correct parts of speech. To make the data clearer for a general audience, the author should place graphs in the body and data tables in an appendix. By making these changes, the Colorado Department of Agriculture will better report its production output information.
32
References
34
35
References
Parker, R. (2006). Looking good in print (6th ed.). Scottsdale: Paraglyph Press. Rude, C. (2006). Technical editing (4th ed.). New York: Pearson-Longman. The Chicago manual of style (15th ed.). (2003). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Model of A Business Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Model of A Business Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Critique of the Colorado Agricultural Statistics Report 1985 Preliminary, 1984 Revised

November 14, 2007

Introduction, Background, and Audience

Background and Purpose

The Documents Audience

Purpose and Scope of the Critique

The Front Matter

The Front Matter

The Main Title Page

Figure 1 Colorado Agricultural Statistics Original Title Page

The Commissioners Welcome Letter

Colorado Agricultural Statistics

Colorado Department of Agriculture Timothy W. Schultz, Commissioner

United States Department of Agriculture

William E. Kibler, Administrator

Figure 2 Colorado Agricultural Statistics Revised Title Page

Figure 3 Original Commissioners Welcome Letter

Timothy W. Schultz Commissioner

Figure 5 Original Table of Contents

Fruits, Vegetables, and Miscellaneous:

Figure 6 Revised Table of Contents

Figure 10 Bar Graph Showing Same Information as in Figure 9

Вам также может понравиться