Issue 62364 - Stacked Bars charts : bars are (also) not really stacked
Summary: Stacked Bars charts : bars are (also) not really stacked
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of issue 10704
Alias: None
Product: General
Classification: Code
Component: chart (show other issues)
Version: 3.3.0 or older (OOo)
Hardware: All All
: P4 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: IngridvdM
QA Contact: issues@graphics
Depends on:
Reported: 2006-02-21 01:29 UTC by greenslach
Modified: 2013-02-24 21:19 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: FEATURE
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description greenslach 2006-02-21 01:29:51 UTC
In this spreadsheet :

In Column C3, the yellow bar should go from -17 to 1 and not from 0 to 18. 
There is a similar problem in column C5.
Comment 1 kla 2006-02-21 10:24:52 UTC
@IHA: I think the behaviour is correct. Maybe an idea for an new Charttype?
Comment 2 IngridvdM 2006-02-21 13:25:03 UTC
The current behaviour is as designed. Negative bars are stacked below and
positive bars are stacked on top, thus the length of all bars are visible. This
issue is requesting a different behaviour that maybe can be introduced by a
parameter for bar charts or by introducing a completly new charttype. I am not
sure about that yet. It is also not clear to me why you want the bars to be
summed up independent from their sign. This will only lead to bars hiding each
other. Maybe choosing the area or line chart does fit your needs much better and
will do the trick for you?
Comment 3 greenslach 2006-02-23 14:14:59 UTC
I reported this issue because the current behaviour seemed unexpected to me.  I
agree there isn't much practical uses for negative stacked bars.

I just see one case where it would be useful : building a Gantt chart using
stacked bars, where you have a task planned to start a fixed number of days
before the end of another task.

Comment 4 IngridvdM 2006-03-07 12:50:42 UTC
As the Gantt chart is targeted already with issue 10704 I close this issue as

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 10704 ***
Comment 5 IngridvdM 2006-03-17 13:09:08 UTC