https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389855
--- Comment #13 from Matthew Trescott <matthewtresc...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Alexander Semke from comment #10) > (In reply to Matthew Trescott from comment #9) > > Fair enough, but that's still really unintuitive behavior. > Agree. But this is still more intuitive than in most other programs that > support multiple axes. You mentioned LoggerPro as an example for a software > with good UX. What is the workflow in this program to create plots like on > the screenshots in the following links? > https://reference.wolfram.com/language/howto/ > GeneratePlotsWithTwoVerticalScales.html > https://www.originlab.com/doc/Origin-Help/MultiY-Graph > http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3743?page=0,2 > https://de.mathworks.com/help/matlab/creating_plots/graph-with-multiple-x- > axes-and-y-axes.html?s_tid=gn_loc_drop I recorded a screen capture of an example with two Y axes in Logger Pro. It's on my Google Drive because of the size limit on Bugzilla: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jf8bl6CPxstT6VC_s_8_lmiDEhW9bcHX True, it's less flexible than LabPlot, but notice how trivial it is to use. Before today I didn't even know that Logger Pro supported two y-axes, and that recording was only my second try. > It looks like a piece of paper because every worksheet has a fixed size on > default. What you're referring here to are, I think, not the _ranges_ of the > data shown in the plot but the _size_ of plot and/or worksheet. I'm > attaching two screenshots making the difference clear. Both plots show the > same amount of data in the same data ranges, namely x=[0,20] and y=[-1,1], > for f(x)=sin(x) with x \in (0,20). In the plot shown in > worksheet_fixed_size.png the size of the worksheet is fixed (10cm x 10cm) > and the plot adjusts its size (layout is active with some values for top, > bottom, left and right margins). On the second screenshot > worksheet_view_size.png the same function is plotted but now with worksheet > adjusting it's size to the view size. To get this simply select "view size" > for the size in the worksheet properties. If you resize the sub-window > (change the size or maximize the sub-window), the worksheet and the plots on > it will adjust the sizes accordingly. You can also set all the layout > margins to 0 if you need more space for the plot(s) and also play around > with the plot area paddings in the plot properties. You can even show the > data in the presenter mode if you want to further get rid of menu bar and > toolbars (main menu bar -> Worksheet -> show in presenter mode). Once you > have your desired settings for the worksheet and plot (sizes, etc.) you can > save them as default values (template buttons at the bottom of the > properties dock widgets for different objects) - every newly created object > will be then created with these properties. > > > > > So basically, please make the plot more freeform until _after_ the user is > > done analyzing. The average user will, I think, expect the number of ticks > > to grow with the number of data points added. The average user will also > > probably want to inspect the graph by panning and zooming before making a > > printable version. > We have quite a lot for zooming already. Panning will come soon. But of > course, we're not done yet. Still a lot can be improved and added. Number of > ticks is tricky and very many users won't expect the number of ticks to grow > with the number of data - if I plot couple of values in the x-range 1-10 I > want to have maybe the ticks for 1, 2, ...10, but if I plot 100k points in > the range 1-10^6, I don't want to have million of ticks. > > > Finally, _please_ keep in mind that the average user > > expects things to Just Work. Thanks for all your help. > Agree. The problem here is that there is no global "average" user. Depending > on the actual workflows, tasks and scenarios, different users have different > demands on this kind of software and we need to keep all of them in mind > when implementing features and going for certain "default values". I think there's another angle though: the user who needs advanced features will be smart enough (for lack of a better phrase) to find and enable them. The user who does not need them may simply be overwhelmed and give up if advanced formatting features are enabled by default. I can see that LabPlot has smart features, but it just hasn't yet learned to be smart on the user's behalf. ;) I think that two design choices mentioned here are kinda related. - The plot scales down to fit the data, rather than the worksheet expanding to fit it. This is understandable, since with massive numbers it would be unrealistic to grow the worksheet to fit the data. (But then it causes ticks to have non-whole-number labels). However, with panning and zooming, it would not be so surprising if the user wished to pan and zoom to various parts of the graph on his own. In this case, having the plot constantly autoscale while adding data points could be undesirable, so maybe autoscaling should by default only. - The number of ticks is fixed. Here, I think, is the problem. The user shouldn't have to guess-and-check how many ticks are needed. It should be possible for LabPlot, by default, to find a value equal to or higher than the maximum value on a given axis that is a whole-number multiple of some reasonable tick increment. (The tick increment would be based on the size of the plot on the screen.) Of course, advanced users might want to adjust the distance between ticks manually, but I think even that would be very much preferable to changing the _number_ of ticks. The above method describes roughly what Logger Pro does, although if LabPlot supported manually setting the tick increment it would actually have another feature that Logger Pro does not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
