Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Morpholocal Cumulative and Net Graphs on BS #194
modified the milestones:
Next Version - Tackle After GeoTERM Workshop
Apr 6, 2018
This was referenced
May 8, 2018
@jb10016 and @joewheaton I have refactored the chart from the morphological results to now also appear on the budget seg results. See below. I think the top graph is the same for both uses and I have this working. However, I have some questions about the lower graph:
added a commit
Jul 30, 2018
However, I am still a little unsure whether lines is the best visualization tool. The volumes plotted in these graphs are integrated from discrete spatial units, and may therefore contain a bias resulting from the different area of each polygon that could be obscured by plotting as a continuous function. Using average depths (m3/m2) gets around that, but ultimately people are likely to want to know the actual vols in each cell I suspect.
Overall, I think I would therefore stick to presenting both graphs here as bar charts - the issue is whether the x-axis needs to be scaled to account for irregular linear sampling when distance is available. That would make sense, but then you run in to the question of whether the bars should be scaled too, or the widths remain constant (probably my preference).
Beyond, these points, I am a little less sure why you suggest this issue only pertains to the lower graph? I wonder - is this because you are thinking this should be the cumulative vol - as is shown (but incidentally not labelled as such in the morpho plot)? For the BS results however, I think the key graph here is simple the net change - which again should plot sensibly as a bar?
I'm not sure how much sense the above makes ... I'm still reeling from the lack of sleep since our little lady was born the week before last! ;-)
@jb10016 Congrats! And the chaos returns!
@philipbaileynar Chaos is certainly the word ... ;-)
All sounds good to me, though be interested to hear the thoughs of @joewheaton
Just a thought ... how hard would it be to offer the option to export the data behind the graph (rather like the CSViewer does)? Or perhaps easier ... link a button here to take them directly to the intercomparison spreadsheet that documents the data (but actually doesn't contain the distance field)?
Nice work @philipbaileynar .. a little feedback:
a) For the longitudinal breakdown I like the idea of using the same red/blue colour scheme on the net change graph and wondered whether the way of avoiding titles and the legend would be to change the y-axis titles, i.e., top graph = volumes of +ve/-ve vertical change (m); and lower graph = net vertical change (m). Happy to hear alternatives ... but this neutral language gets around the current legend labels (erosion/deposition) and means that both graphs are self-explantory.
b) sorting the spacing of the lower graph to match the top would be excellent if possible.
c) like the pie-chart title - seems clearer to me, though is there anything we can do as a quick fix on that set of graphs to reposition the titles which currently overlap the chart?
d) I think the option to genericize (boy what an awful Americanism ...) the longitudinal breakdown is a good idea and would enable a quick overview of the pattern of changes by polygons for a regular BS. The problem - as you suggest - is would this become illegible when you have 10+ segments to present, especially given the need to see the x-axis label to make sense of it?
I wonder if a potential work-around could be to add in some hovertext that reveals the name of the category when you place your mouse over bar? Incidentally, that would work well for the pie charts too ....