To get this effect in Excel, you would make the chart tall enough for all of the data, then use a few dummy series to draw the box outlining the nominal plot area and the portion of the Y axis that is shown.

I can make it out by cell,text box, but is there any better method ?

Supply a few more details, perhaps also a link to a mock up, and I’ll have a look.

In Tony’s example, if you set a minimum of 0, a maximum of 48, and a spacing of 5, the axis will go up to 48, but the last tick mark and gridline will be at 45.

@Jon – If I was only allotted the current data, I probably would have gone with a line chart. I think most people look at line charts in terms of time scale on the x-axis and bar charts as comparing “things”. I am generalizing and just drawing my own conclusion based I what I initially think when I look at these types of charts.

Another option is to use a line chart with my single data point example showing the overall percent change from ’99 to ’07. This way you can see the changes each year and also have the total change all in one line chart.

If the changes are relatively smooth, as in this case, I don’t think it’s worth gaining the added resolution of a 35-to-50 scale by removing the clear indication of the entire 0-to-whatever value of each point. Yeah, I know, with markers (as opposed to bars) you don’t need to start at zero.

Remember, showing just this data, unnormalized, was not one of my preferences in the first place.

For a scale without gridlines, it’s a little less forgivable, because it’s harder to gauge the last point by eye that way. And here, there was no reason to avoid the fifty, which would have ben a fine round number to use (and which could then have allowed an interval of ten per label, instead of the excessive five per label.

Why would you not just magnify $35M to $50M with an axis break so the changes are more visible?

Thanks for the comment! I hope you had a nice Christmas.