You should be able to see this table on the basic tab of the spreadsheet above. Each row of data represents a pie chart you wish to create with 6 segments per pie chart. (Please note the three blank columns, we’ll fill those in in Step 3). Imagine you have a data table like the one shown below.
#I CANT MAKE A PIE CHART IN EXCEL 2013 CODE#
Add the vba code to add the pie charts to the bubble graphĭownload the example excel sheet here Step 1: Create the data table for the different pie charts.Include the bubble graph data in the data table.Create the data table for the different pie charts.If you don’t, then to create a simple bubble pie chart there are 5 steps: How can it be done? If you have the new Excel 2013, then it’s easy: use the new extensions. (Thanks to work done by Andy Pope): Or even using longitudes and latitudes, create a world map pie chart: What if you could combine the two to make a bubble pie chart. Pies are a useful, though not the only, tool for telling a story about preference factions and fractions.We all know what a pie chart looks like, and we all know what a bubble chart looks like: The choice of charts depends on the story we’re trying to tell. The obvious dominance of an Orange-Green coalition has, in this story, weakened in the past decade. The story told in the decade=to-decade comparison, as shown with side-by-side pies, shows that a Red-Green alliance in 2010 would for the first time (in the two sample history) result in a clear majority. If Green is any sort of coalition, a stacked bar showing the composition of that membership would indicate to the Orange and Red leaders what sub-sets of the Green set might be peeled out, en masse. Orange and Red will each be politicing and wooing set Green, (giving Green some clout, if the adhesion or boundary enforecement of the set is strong) - or Orange and Red will attack Green, attempting to break it up, and peel off members of the set, if Green identificatioin is not strong or enforced. But members of Green are not completely opposed to the position of Red. Brick Red set members might be lured into the Orange Set, as might member from Green.
Bright Green and Olive are likewise diametrically opposed to each other. The placement of the slices indicates (or should) that Orange and Red are always in opposition unlikely to see members drift or shift from one set to the adjoining set. Even if they compromise their intrinsic color and position they jointly approach the size of only one of any of the three larger factions. Even together, they can’t swing a coalition majority for either Red or Orange - though they do come closer with Orange that Red. Though Brick Red and Olive are both minority slices there is no point to either making alliance with the other. Alliance between Brange and Brick Red results in nothing at all worth the compromise. Again, the alliance with Bright Green results in that coalition’s majority. Orange might ally with Bright Green or Brick Red.
An alliance with Olive does not give that coalition a majority. Red might ally to either Bright Green or Olive. It obscures, rather than reveals, how any pair of factions compare to the whole, (or to the magicial 50% + 1 unit) of the whole. It most easily shows how the biggest faction compares to the next biggest faction. The top horizontal bar chart shows how one faction compares to the others. The fraction of interest is “most”, and the smallest combination of closely positioned factions or factors that sum to that fraction is most clearly portrayed in the pie. With respect I completely disagree with the conclusion, but the reasoning is correct and the example is extremely useful.