My apologies in advance if this questions is better suited to be migrated elsewhere.
In a standard (X,Y) Cartesian line/dot plot the axis should be placed in a contextually logical place. In a graph presenting real world quantification with only real positive integers that are possible (>= 0) I am told that the only possible intersection for the axis is (0,0). Even it seems at the expense of clearly seeing a point at X=0...
I would like to ask if in academic publications there is any validity to permitting your reader to see all your points clearly by applying a subtle shift (padding the axis to the left). See figure included.
The opposition I am receiving to this concept stems from the inference that the y-axis being placed in a negative region gives rise to the possibility that negative values are possible, even though it's a physical impossibility in this context to go below 0 in terms of having a physical entity. But because the axis stops (without labels) at the y axis and doesn't carry past it (deeper (except for the tick mark at y=0) into the negative quadrant, it is obvious and better to see the point and it's error bars. The range is quite significant and so these error bars are hard enough to see.
Here are some of the consequences I see when I plot the axis at (0,0)
- Point gets a little hard to see and the error bar almost entirely disapeers
- Error bar caps look y axis ticks which make the y axis messy and the error bar almost invisible. Increasing thickness of error bars looks very messy.
- Increasing point size could encompass the error bars in this particular context.