In such a case, I would center the values (and their headers) too.

Vertically? So in this case having "Knowledge resource" on the same line as "Uniform", you mean?

No, horizontally: Adaptor, Innovator, etc. centered with High, Low, etc.

Vertically, Knowledge resource would maybe better aligned to the bottom.

Okay; today I’m not concerning myself with horizontal alignments - that’s a whole separate kettle of fish! So, vertically, you’re agreeing with our authors and the style-guide examples.

Oh, sorry, I misread your question.
But, yes, I'd say bottom, because it relates directly with the column's content.
(in a different design, maybe vertically centered could work too)

I would say bottom row, for the reason you suggest. Think of that heading not as a major heading with no subheads, but as a subhead with no overarching categories it belongs to. Imagine your levels of headings building out from bottom to top, not vice versa.

That's two votes for bottom row.
Anyone else?
(Plus, anyone have any nice, authoritative reference books that rule on the subject?) :^)

I would say top aligned, to reflect that they are equal in hierarchy. But I don't think there's any right or wrong answer, it's mostly personal preference.

I find myself in agreement with James. It's about hierarchy -- the right hand side may have three subdivisions or it may have a dozen, but it should not take the other major heading at its left down to its own level.

I’m uncomfortable with the italics.
Italics are a secondary style, so they should not be first in a layout.
Bold, caps, or small caps would be better.

It doesn’t hurt to have vertical rules and/or tonal areas for different cells: asymmetric minimalism is a bit vague for tabular layouts, which seems to be the source of your problem.

So, your votes so far are two vs. two.

Nick's suggestion of vertical rules is a good idea. They aren't always necessary but in this case I think they may help.

Hee hee, thanks all, and I do appreciate the inputs on other aspects of the design (not that I’m in a position to implement them); Nick I quite agree that if it were down to me the column heads would be bold, not italic, and italic would then be for headings in the left column that “group” rows of related data, in such tables as warrant them.

Yep, so it’s looking like a fairly even spread of voices, and therefore down to personal preference. :^/

In this case, align on the bottom row. See Glossary of Typesetting Terms (Chicago), the appendix on tables.

Each "row" (level of head) signifies what the head ranges over. In the bottom "row" (level of head), the head ranges over the data (or stub) of individual columns. If you had a squib line, that would introduce a bit different complication.

Some people view tables as being an exercise in graphic design, some of us as a way to present data. They can do both, but one is primary. Guess which one I pick.

Some people view tables as being an exercise in graphic design, some of us as a way to present data.

Uh, what’s the diff?

Uh, what’s the diff?

Good one. Ideally, there isn't any.

When I go to the book show at the AAUP national meeting, I always spend more time with the rejects than with the selected books. You can learn a lot about the jurors that way. What you learn isn't always favorable. In a way, a good show is one where the "not selected" books do have some flaws, or at least, in some way aren't quite as good as those selected. There is always a judgement aspect, but I'm not talking about that.

Be interesting to hear Kent Lew's reaction to being a juror at AAUP.

A long time ago, I was a juror -- a smaller show, the Rocky Mountain Book Show. Some of the hardest work I ever did. The other (interior) juror was Rich Hendel. I'm proud that we almost completely saw eye to eye.

Thank Charles for being the first to find some citable source!

I had hoped that either Mitchell & Wightman or Bringhurst would have something to say, but they both treat tables very briefly in a couple of pages without going into any detail.