Add more samples, to make testing with multiple panels easier.

[mikeprosserni]

What does this Pull Request accomplish?

This just adds two more samples, for a total of three.

Why should this Pull Request be merged?

This will make it easier to test with multiple panels.

What testing has been done?

I tested by running all three panels at the same time:

[github-actions]

Test Results

   10 files  ±0     10 suites  ±0   18s ⏱️ -1s
  150 tests ±0    150 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
1 470 runs  ±0  1 470 ✅ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit c3dad08. ± Comparison against base commit d2a957b.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[jfriedri-ni]

I made some documentation suggestions to replace passive voice with active voice.

Johann is out of office, and Joe is taking his role for this PR.

[jfriedri-ni]

Consider updating (or deleting) the screenshots in the PR description or moving them as assets for the readmes so users can know whether "they got it working" correctly.

Food for thought later on...

• In the logic script, we call create_panel() and store the retval in a variable named panel
• In the visualization script, we call initialize_panel() and store the retval in a variable named panel
• But the panels are not the same class

One impression a reader may have is "I should call create, and then call initialize," but that would put them on a confusing path. Perhaps we can use create_visualization() or similar rather than initialize_panel() to hint that these functions are not meant to be used together in the same file.