On 2015/02/18 2:39 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Feb 16, 2015 3:39 PM, "Eric Firing" <efir...@hawaii.edu> wrote: >> >> On 2015/02/16 1:29 PM, Michael Waskom wrote: >> >>> Nathaniel's January 9 message in that thread (can't figure out how to >>> link to it in the archives) had a suggestion that I thought was very >>> promising, to do something similar to Parula but rotate around the hue >>> circle the other direction so that the hues would go blue - purple - red >>> - yellow. I don't think we've seen an example of exactly what it would >>> look like, but I reckon it would be similar to the middle colormap here >>> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/elegantfigures/files/2013/08/three_perceptual_palettes_618.png >>> (from the elegant figures block series linked above), which I've always >>> found quite attractive. >> >> Certainly it can be considered--but we have to have a real implementation. > > While I hate to promise vaporware, I actually was planning to have a > go at implementing such a colormap in the next few weeks, based on > optimizing the same set of parameters that viscm visualizes... FWIW.
Do you think there is a way to make a sequential map that is more pleasing to those of us who are more comfortable with blues and greens than with the slightly muddy purples and browns in the initial attempt at HCL? > > Are we planning to make other default appearance changes at the same > time? The idea of changing the color cycle and/or dot-dash cycle has > already come up in this thread, and this earlier thread proposed > several more good ideas [1]: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.matplotlib.devel/13128/focus=13166 My thought was to just change the color cycle, but other style aspects are by no means out of the question. Thank you for pointing out that thread. > > I agree that now is definitely the time to get serious about making > these changes, but it seems like there's enough to be worked out that > sticking to the original plan and keeping mainline quasi-frozen until > 2.0 is ready might create frustration and hasty decisions. Maybe it > would be less stressful all around if we let mainline development > proceed at whatever pace makes sense while these things get sorted > out, and then once the appearance changes are ready make the call > about whether to cut a quick 1.5 first or not? Presumably these > defaults will stick around for many years so it's worth taking a few > months to get a complete proposal together, get feedback, etc., IMO. The problem is that we have years of experience of no change, no decisions, no convergence of opinion. More recently we have had general agreement that a change is in order, but we are sadly lacking in concrete proposals. I certainly don't want to see a bad decision made, but without considerable prodding, it seems most likely that this will drag on for years. We need to make a change that is good; "perfect" is unattainable. > > In an ideal world version 1.last might even provide a > style.use("matplotlib2") command to preview what 2.0 will do, just > like 2.0 will presumably have a style.use("matplotlib1") command for > those who want to (temporarily) revert. This is a good idea--but even for this, we need actual style files. Eric > > -n > > [1] well I would think that wouldn't I ;-) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=190641631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Matplotlib-devel mailing list Matplotlib-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
