There have been other discussion on this. I actually am in favor of allowing the user to specify their own aggregation function for determining the color, instead of using the default "average" aggregation function. See this discussion:
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-visualization-api/YwHqHA6vRXs/discussion I'm not aware of any changes made to the treemap, though. On Friday, March 2, 2012 9:44:47 AM UTC-5, Apps & Dev CCAC wrote: > > There's some good discussion going on over on the issue thread linked in > the above post. Some changes have been made, but nothing that really > solves my problem. If anyone else is using the treemap, some additional > thoughts and opinions would be great. > > > > On Thursday, March 1, 2012 10:27:21 AM UTC-5, Apps & Dev CCAC wrote: >> >> I entered an issue about this last week, but with no feedback on that, >> I thought I may get a better response here. >> >> Here is the link to the issue that goes into more detail with an >> example: >> >> http://code.google.com/p/google-visualization-api-issues/issues/detail?id=824&sort=-id&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Priority%20Milestone%20Owner%20Summary%20Stars >> >> >> Basically, the issue pops up whenever you have a tree map with more >> than 1 level of drill down. It appears when the color value is >> calculated, it calculates an average based on the child directly below >> it. This works fine as long as you are only drilling down one level, >> but when you have more levels, you end up calculating the color value >> based on averages of averages. This leaves me with data that can vary >> in color drastically based on the data included in the middle tiers. >> >> The issue I linked to is the simplest dataset I could come up with to >> show the problem. I have seen other post discussing how the color >> values are calculated, but nothing discussing the legitimacy of these >> calculations. Has anyone else noticed this? >> >> Personally, I would like to have the ability to specify my own color >> values. I am calculating them anyway to display to the user, so why >> not just use the values I put in there. Also, it would lead to the >> ability to use values other than numbers that can be averaged. For >> instance, I have a treemap that I would like to make where the color >> would represent percent of utilization. This value would not be >> something that would make sense to be averaged with other percents on >> the higher levels of the treemap. Instead, it would be a value that >> would have to be calculated independently at each level. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Visualization API" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-visualization-api/-/x1JqdKzQRcMJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-visualization-api?hl=en.
