Closed DanTanAtAims closed 5 months ago
This is awesome! Thanks!
Providing reasonable defaults for the graph visualisation is difficult because of the size of the graph and the variance from south to north.
What sort of issues are you seeing?
This is awesome! Thanks!
Providing reasonable defaults for the graph visualisation is difficult because of the size of the graph and the variance from south to north.
What sort of issues are you seeing?
Edge transparency values that make the connectivity of the central GBR clearly visible make the north and south turn into a mess. The same issues appear for node sizes.
Edge transparency values that make the connectivity of the central GBR clearly visible make the north and south turn into a mess. The same issues appear for node sizes.
I see. You could try enforce a minimum/maximum node size/transparency level. Playing with line thickness based on connectivity strength for the edges will also help.
In the end, I don't mind a mess as it's a clear indicator of where a lot of connections exist. And it's alleviated by the interactivity as you say.
I've swapped the plot ordering and increased the map alpha to make the outlines more visible.
Add connectivity visualistion method.
Providing reasonable defaults for the graph visualisation is difficult because of the size of the graph and the variance from south to north. However, the interactivity somewhat remedies this. Feel free to provide suggestions.
Entire
South
Central
North