Re. Numbering graphics

[Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

     Kevin Sporleder asked whether it's OK to number only the most
     important of your graphics (figures).

     In general, I'd say "no". The main reason for numbering a graphic is
     so that you can refer to it from somewhere else in the book, usually
     many pages later, without worrying about the graphic's position.
     Without numbers, you have to resort to workarounds such as "the middle
     left graphic on page 3". If the layout changes, you've also got to
     worry about correcting the page and position information (unless your
     software does this automatically for you).

     Determining whether to number based on importance looks inconsistent,
     and is also arbitrary. Is the graphic important to you, or to the
     reader, and how do you determine this? That's pretty subjective, and
     adds unnecessary work for you and your editor: number them all and you
     don't have to worry about being arbitrary.

     One exception might be that in software manuals, you don't number
     _any_ of your figures. The reason is that readers generally shouldn't
     have to flip pages to find a graphic; you're usually better off
     (kinder to the reader) repeating a graphic than referencing it because
     readers don't have to flip pages. This repetition is particularly
     important for online docs because the cross-reference may not work,
     and even if it does, adds work for you (i.e., building and editing the
     cross-reference link) and the reader (i.e, adds one more hyperjump to
     obtain necessary context).

     --Geoff Hart     #8^{)}
     geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

     Disclaimer: These comments are my own and don't represent the opinions
     of the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada.