-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Devon McCormick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would avoid moving around axes based on the particular values of > data, as you suggested, because this would give arbitrary and > inconsistent pictures of the data across different experiments. Good point. In general, I wouldn't do that. In this case, I only have one graph to show, so it's perhaps not as big a deal. Yet, I'm all for keeping the graphics both communicative and honest / transparent, so I think I agree. > With the axes so moved, the ravel of the data could be labeled by > base-2 values of i. 16, e.g. #:i.16, but this linearizes it > graphically, so is probably not what you want. However, the > simplicity of labelling reflects the consistency of the axes. The only reason they weren't in that order, I think, is because I inverted one of the axes. That is, the lowest order bit (right one) really went l -> h -> l -> h, but, to give the variable a decent English name, I had to invert its meaning, making it h -> l -> h -> l. I can still shuffle the data to match the new name; thanks for the nudge. > +-------+-------+ > |0.2 0.2|0.7 0.7| > |0.1 0.1|0.6 0.6| > +-------+-------+ > |0.8 0.8|2.2 2.2| > |0.6 0.6|1.7 1.7| > +-------+-------+ Something like this is actually one of the alternatives I'm considering. It does highlight the peak quadrant nicely. I might even be able to throw in some color to help show magnitude, although that's a problem for color-blind folk. I'd label the sides with the variables. > ,.&>/,&.>/<"2 mm NB. Flatten it out > 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 > 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.6 > 0.8 0.8 2.2 2.2 > 0.6 0.6 1.7 1.7 > viewmat ,.&>/,&.>/<"2 mm > > Which has a nice symmetry though I don't know how helpful this is as > far as interpreting your data. That it does. The only problem with viewmat is that I don't know of a way to indicate what quadrant is what. It's nice for exploratory data analysis, perhaps, when I'm looking for possible patterns and know what the axes mean. One of the people to whom I showed my initial graph wanted to be able to skim the text (lightly) and pick up the meaning from the graph, which means the graph needs to be self-contained. I may or may not meet that person's request, though. > Oleg's suggestion is a good example of extending plot but, in general, > we don't do a good job of comparing relative areas which is what you > get when you turn the values into diameters. I thought of that after sending my note last night. I was wondering if it was better to represent the results by diameters or by areas and realizing that the human eye / brain may not do that as well as when the measure is linear. I did something like this before as a stereo stick plot (p. 17 of http://facilitatedsystems.com/weblog/sdforcheapskates.beamer.pdf is a sample stick plot, and p. 20 is a stereogram of another graph). I thought the stereogram was going to be just for the fun of it, but there was a person in the audience who was really into stereograms. I think I'll do up several options and show them to the person I'm doing this for for a final review. Thanks, everyone. Bill - -- Bill Harris http://facilitatedsystems.com/weblog/ Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: For more information, see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQFGFtFU3J3HaQTDvd8RAuu7AJ4m0xlvAn+kKMLGSBK9wlAcu6Q3gACeKJg9 sA8Xo3Ten/hkkJahMW+CeCA= =C1/C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
