OpenDRR / riskprofiler

Web Application to Support Disaster Resilience / Application web pour soutenir la résilience aux catastrophes
MIT License
10 stars 7 forks source link

[ISSUE 3] Inconsistencies with fractions and percentages #82

Open anthonyfok opened 2 years ago

anthonyfok commented 2 years ago

From @tieganh:

Generally speaking, we need to be consistent with presenting things as fractions or as percentages, and not use the “%” on fractions. The example shown has a hover over value of “0.49%”, but the legend hover over for this shade of red is “44.44+ %“. If we are multiplying legend values by 100 and adding the “%”, then we should do the same for the hover over, detail box, and left hand table. Probably easier at this stage to omit the “%” and change legend values to fractions?

Screen Shot 2022-10-13 at 7 15 33 PM

anthonyfok commented 2 years ago

@phil-evans replies:

i think this is also related to the changes to the rounding rules - this page was initially set up so that the returned data would follow the rounding rules that are created for the indicator in WP, but it seems to have lost that step after we added the new formatting logic. i’ll see if i can find where that’s going wrong

anthonyfok commented 2 years ago

@jvanulde replies:

I think easiest to multiply the hover over values by 100, and redo the legend to align with this maximum. @plesueur?

anthonyfok commented 2 years ago

@plesueur replies:

We should stay consistent with what we're presenting on the sidebar. For the 'probability of building damage' case, we use fractions and not a percent. So I agree with @tieganh to omit the % and change the legend values to fractions.

anthonyfok commented 2 years ago

@phil-evans asks:

just to confirm - for all of the ‘probability’ indicators, i should remove the % symbols from the popup and legend?

Screen Shot 2022-10-14 at 2 03 58 PM

anthonyfok commented 2 years ago

@plesueur explains:

Follow the units displayed on the side panel. In other words:

image

anthonyfok commented 2 years ago

@phil-evans replies:

ok, i believe this is all right now:

Screen Shot 2022-10-14 at 3 15 41 PM

anthonyfok commented 2 years ago

@phil-evans asks:

one thing i noticed - the annual economic loss ratio in the sidebar is pulling eAALm_Bldg, not eAALm_Asset.. not sure if that’s right or not

wkhchow commented 2 years ago

@phil-evans asks:

one thing i noticed - the annual economic loss ratio in the sidebar is pulling eAALm_Bldg, not eAALm_Asset.. not sure if that’s right or not

If that's the case I believe we want it to match asset for all, so annual economic loss ratio should b e pointing to eAALm_Asset and not eAALm_Bldg, which in the case for North Vancouver above should be 0.044% @plesueur

plesueur commented 2 years ago

yep, @wkhchow has got it right. Use eAALm_Asset.

Good catch @phil-evans