[yt-dev] Change to defaults of ProjectionPlot and OffAxisProjectionPlot

j s oishi jsoishi at gmail.com
Thu Jul 17 06:52:13 PDT 2014 

Hi Matt,

I am struggling to understand your objection. The unit is already changed
in projection. Cameron's point is that the variable name is not changed,
and without a qualifier such as integrated or projected, it does look like
the user made a typo. Why would we want to put the burden on the user to
correct such a common occurrence?  I guess I don't understand your
objection. Could you expand on why you are so skittish about changing the
colorbar label? I am assuming there is a technical objection I don't know
about.

Also, I think adding a title is not a good solution, since it creates a
large distance between between "projection" and "density" (for example),
but leaves no distance between "density" and "g/cm^2".

Furthermore, regarding Sam's objection regarding SZ and other unusual
fields, I wonder if we should put the burden of manually entering the label
on the least likely use case. I think, though I could be wrong, that the
majority of Astro users are interested in density projections, in which
case we should use "projection" by default. If we are striving to
generalize beyond that, then I think "integrated" is the proper word.

J
Hi Cameron,

I've done a lot of thinking about this, and I'm of two minds.

1) I do not think we should change the colorbar; we're displaying
units there, and we should either let the person making the plot
change the title of those units, or we should display what they are.
2) We should allow the plots to indicate somehow what they are, rather
than delegating that exclusively to the filename.

Do you think it would suffice to add a title to the plots?  That would
not touch the "units" (which I am really skittish about modifying) but
will still display the semantic information about the plot.

-Matt

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>>
>> after all, we have projected_units attached to the fields.
>
>
> Nope, not after unitrefactor was merged in.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:45 PM, John ZuHone <jzuhone at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is probably a bad idea, but could we add a "projected_name" keyword
>>> (or something similar) to the add_field function, which could be
"Projected"
>>> as the default but could be left as "" for things like SZY? It would
only be
>>> applied if there isn't a weight field.
>>>
>>> I suspect folks feel that add_field already has too many keyword
>>> parameters, but I just wanted to throw it out there.
>>>
>>> Sent from John ZuHone's iPad
>>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 8:39 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sam,
>>>
>>> What would you think if we changed the "Projected" prepend to
>>> "Integrated"?  That would still apply well for "Integrated Density" as
well
>>> as "Integrated SZY", right?
>>>
>>> I'm just very much against the default of having "Density (g/cm^2)" show
>>> up on projection plots (using the 'integrated' type), because this is
>>> misleading and it just makes it look like you made a mistake when your
units
>>> don't match your field.  As Matt suggests, we could have the title set
to
>>> "Projection" for projections by default which is better than the current
>>> settings IMO, but it seems less clean than changing the colorbar label.
>>>
>>> Anyone else have any thoughts about this?
>>>
>>> Cameron
>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Sam Skillman <samskillman at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Cameron,hing
>>>>
>>>> While it would be nice if there was a simple default that would work
for
>>>> all types of projections and fields, I think I'm also a -0 on this
because
>>>> of weird fields like the SZY, where it only makes sense as an
integrated
>>>> field, and Projected SZY isn't a term that is used.  I think that
simply
>>>> allowing others to modify the colorbar name is the more sustainable
way in
>>>> terms of handling all of the options for integration type as well.  I
could
>>>> be convinced otherwise, but I think having the units for things like
density
>>>> show up as g/cm^2 vs g/cm^3 should be enough for the time being.
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Cameron,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm -0 on this, but mainly because I don't really like changing it to
>>>>> have that information as part of the colorbar, rather than the title
>>>>> for instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matt
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > Oh, I almost forgot to show examples:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > current behavior of a non-weighted density projection:
>>>>> > http://i.imgur.com/vBSRRLq.png
>>>>> >
>>>>> > proposed behavior of a non-weighted density projection:
>>>>> > http://i.imgur.com/UP6f5Nh.png
>>>>> >
>>>>> > although i like the idea that Nathan has about having "column
>>>>> > density" for
>>>>> > projected density plots.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Nathan Goldbaum
>>>>> > <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Cameron Hummels
>>>>> >> <chummels at gmail.com>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Hey everyone,
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> I've created a pull request which changes the defaults of the
>>>>> >>> ProjectionPlot and OffAxisProjectionPlot, although I'm looking for
>>>>> >>> feedback
>>>>> >>> from the community.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Right now, when you create a projection, say for "Density", it
>>>>> >>> labels the
>>>>> >>> colorbar with "Density" and then gives its projected units
(instead
>>>>> >>> of
>>>>> >>> g/cm^3, it gives g/cm^2).  My PR is simply to change the default
>>>>> >>> label to be
>>>>> >>> "Projected <field>" in this case "Projected Density (g/cm^2)".
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> +1. I also sort of like the idea of special-casing  - in particular
>>>>> >> for
>>>>> >> density, which I think should show up as "Column Density".
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> It will do this in the case of non-weighted projections.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Also only when proj_stype = "integrate".
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> I think this is the expected behavior and more accurate than the
>>>>> >>> former
>>>>> >>> behavior, but I'm open to discussion from the rest of the dev
>>>>> >>> community.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> In addition, it might be worthwhile to change the defaults on
>>>>> >>> weighted-projections (e.g. density-weighted temperature
>>>>> >>> projection), to give
>>>>> >>> it and appropriate label as well, but I'm less convinced of this
>>>>> >>> change.
>>>>> >>> Perhaps something like "<weight_field>-Weighted <field> (units)" ?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I'm not sure about this.  Whatever we decide on, it should
hopefully
>>>>> >> be
>>>>> >> compact.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> There is also a PR awaiting approval by John Regan that deals with
>>>>> >>> this
>>>>> >>> behavior which will allow users to easily specify whatever label
>>>>> >>> they want
>>>>> >>> for the colorbar, but I thought having a sensible default was
>>>>> >>> appropriate as
>>>>> >>> well.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Anyway, what do people think about these potential changes?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Cameron
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> --
>>>>> >>> Cameron Hummels
>>>>> >>> Postdoctoral Researcher
>>>>> >>> Steward Observatory
>>>>> >>> University of Arizona
>>>>> >>> http://chummels.org
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >>> yt-dev mailing list
>>>>> >>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>>>> >>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> yt-dev mailing list
>>>>> >> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>>>> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Cameron Hummels
>>>>> > Postdoctoral Researcher
>>>>> > Steward Observatory
>>>>> > University of Arizona
>>>>> > http://chummels.org
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > yt-dev mailing list
>>>>> > yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>>>> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>>> >
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cameron Hummels
>>> Postdoctoral Researcher
>>> Steward Observatory
>>> University of Arizona
>>> http://chummels.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Hummels
>> Postdoctoral Researcher
>> Steward Observatory
>> University of Arizona
>> http://chummels.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140717/d5b91b81/attachment.htm>

More information about the yt-dev mailing list