Count data points in each quartile. You can do that for any sortable data, independent of distribution.
No, as the sidethread comment notes, there is only one way you can compute quartiles. You seem to be arguing that the correct thing to do is to impute them, and that calculating them is such a deviant practice that it would need to be specially remarked on.
Box plots are made for visualizing generalized normal distributions and nothing else.
Your theory would imply, among other things, that the median line going through the box part of a box plot always divides it in half, which obviously is not the case.
Whatever you do, you should explain first what you do that your whiskers stay meaningful and are not just whatever randomness your outliers produced.
I agree that if there is an indication that if most professionals don't really know what boxplot is supposed communicate, maybe it should not be used.
Any set of numbers I give you, you can compute quartiles for it. There is no algorithm for doing that that breaks down if the numbers don't follow a normal distribution.
When you calculate the box plot using normal distribution parameters, the outliers are outside the outer bracket.
If you split the dataset into 4 equal parts, the bracket will be larger because the outliers are still inside it.
The methodologies are not equal.
This thread is the first time i heard people do the "split dataset into 4 quarters" and using that for box plots.
In any event, none of these methods assume normality, or rely on CDFs of a normal curve.
If they did, every box plot would be symmetric.
The fact some people think that boxplots are constructed in such a way is a pretty good reason to take the author's article seriously as for how boxplots are confusing.
It serves to distance it from the moment-based statistics like mean and variance at least.
The SVG you've provided clearly shows that the box plot splits the data in 4. The interquartile range (IQR) is clearly marked and it even has a comparison for what the standard deviation (variance) measure would be.
Secondly, if the data truly came from a normal distribution, there are no outliers. Outliers are data points which cannot be explained by the model and need to be removed. Unless you have a good reason to exclude the data points they should be included. This is why I like the IQR and the median, they are not swayed by a few wide valued data points. The 1.5*IQR rejection filter I think is lazy and unjustified. Happy to discuss this point further as it is a bug bear of mine.
What you want to explain to me (IMHO to the wrong person) is the correct approach of calculating a mean and standard deviation and drawing the box from that. Lets stay with that (and thats what i said earlier in the thread)
After i wrote the post you replied to, i realized that the pure "splitting" method for box plots is nonsensical since the outer brackets interval is determined by the two most extreme values. They are too random to be meaningful. It does not make sense to draw a box plot from that.
If you want to represent the standard deviation with your box plot, you can calculate it using standard formulas, many maths libraries have them built in. I don't know how to plot it using any graphing package though. ggplot, plotly and matlab all use the quantiles (the ones I have experience with). Perhaps where ever you learned to read them as mean and standard devation has a reference you could use?
> They are too random to be meaningful. It does not make sense to draw a box plot from that.
This can be a problem. In practice, the distributions I see don't go too crazy and are bounded (production rates can't be negative and can't be infinite). I prefer to use the 10th and 90th percentiles which are well defined and better behaved for most distributions. I do make sure it's very clearly marked on each plot though as it's not standard. Using the 1.5 x IQR cutoff is no better though as when you have enough samples you find that the whiskers just travel out to the cutoff.