Thanks for your suggestions. Yes, I too was thinking of click + drag to focus on a specific area.
> On Mar 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Dale LaBossiere <[email protected]> wrote: > > Collapse/expand is good. Might be even more valuable if an app could somehow > identify some collection of streams/oplets as being part of some larger > concept. e.g., when one has created a utility fn that takes some input > streams, adds some flow operations, and creates some output streams, it would > be good to be able to collapse/expand the function’s generated “sub-flow”. > > Another mechanism that would be helpful in focusing in on a sub-region of a > graph would be to enable defining a bounding region and then showing only the > info in that region - i.e., left-click-drag a box. > > I’ve got an app in a Tuple Count view where, due to flow scaling, I can’t > really see the oplets. There may be times when an overall zoom control would > be desired. This isn’t one of them for me :-) I don’t want to have to > scroll around to bring the oplets of interest into view. > Would a tuple count (only color the oplet by tuple count, but not size it) + static view help with this issue? I.e, the flow looks the same as in static view, but the oplets are colored according to flow count? > >> On Mar 18, 2016, at 8:16 PM, May Wone <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 on collapsing/expanding parts of the graphs, so it'll be easier to focus >> on subgraphs. >> >> Anything that can help figure out how to map the graph component back to >> the application would be helpful. For example, I'm finding stream tags >> useful to correlate a specific oplet to the the functional call. >> >> On the longer term goal, I can see using a tree to visualize a chain of >> functional calls (nodes) on TStreams objects (edges). >> However, I'm trying to imagine how the tuple flow would integrate into this >> tree. In particular, how union would be displayed. I need to think more. I’m not sure I can visualize it yet either. I’ll fool around with visualizations a bit and post them to QUARKS-20 for additional feedback. >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Susan Cline <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I’ve been thinking about different visualizations for the topology graph >>> based on Dan’s comments below. >>> I’m wondering if a tree layout might be a bit better. >>>
