On Aug 27, 2006, at 12:58 PM, John Kubie wrote:
On Aug 27, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Lars Jensen wrote:
Can you share some examples of attractive graphs?
wow, that's a challenge. It's too tough to do in a short message,
so instead I'll give some thoughts and personal practices.
First, from my point of view, all graphs should use vector graphics
exclusively. These are almost essential for creating publication-
quality graphs.
Second, when I make graphs I make them with the idea of exporting,
through the clipboard, to a graphics layout program such as
Illustrator (which I don't use) or Canvas (which I do use). I do
this whether I am using a devoted graphing program (such as
kaleidagraph) or a graph made from REALbasic. Fortunately,
REALbasic does an adequate job of putting vector graphics into the
clipboard. I don't think it realistic to ask REALbasic to give the
flexibility of a graphics layout program for nudging groups of
vectors, adding text, changing colors, alignment, conversion of
vectors to bitmaps, etc. I think it is asking far to much of
REALbasic to create final-quality graphics.
Let me give an example. Our group recently submitted a paper to the
journal of Neuroscience. Most of the figures were composite
figures. Figure 8 contained 8 graphs. Each was transfered, via the
clipboard, to Canvas. Since these were all vectors graphics
pictures, I had a lot of flexibility (which I used). There were
lots of dots of different colors. We decided to change the size and
color of some of the dots. In Canvas, I could search and select all
of the dots of a particular color and then change their fill and
and size. In the composite canvas document I could align the
graphs, add text, re-arrange and, as a final step, convert to
bitmaps (which the journals like).
So, what I would ask of a scientific program with strength in
graphing is the ability to create component graphs.
Third, I believe attractive graphs are simple and uncluttered. One
of the trickiest graph types, and probably 1/3rd of my graphs, are
histograms (not to be confused with bar graphs). The tricky thing
about a histogram is getting the bin size right, getting the
graphics limits right, and deciding whether the bins should be
central or left edge. Scaling and labeling the x-axis is also tricky.
My taste is to avoid strange color fills or strange symbols. Colors
are for differentiation, not decoration. (My histograms are always
black and white)
The great advantage of REALbasic over a graphics package is total
flexibility. I would guess that most scientific and engineering
presentations are a mix of standard graphics types and home-grown
types. The artistry of graphics presentation is making creative and
informative home-grown plots. In my work I keep track of events
that occur in specific locations (2d). I've used REALbasic to make
a variety of plots of this type of data. None are standard plots.
As a rule, I use graphing programs for standard graphs and
REALbasic for the homegrown stuff. But the extra steps involved in
going thru a graphing program can make this awkward, and I have
tried to make a general purpose histogram grapher.
The challenge of giving examples of "good" and "attractive" graphs
is too difficult. To do an adequate job would probably take about a
dozen examples and a fair amount of explanation. A beginning is to
look at top-flight scientific journals, such as Science or, in my
field, Journal of Neuroscience. But even in these there are many
poor plots. The criteria I look for: simplicity and lack of
clutter; attractive layout; easy to read standard plot; interesting
and attractive home-grown plots.
Are you having good luck in printing the vector graphics graphs
directly from your Rb application, or are you relying on printing
from Canvas?
Best,
Jack
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
