You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When I asked the group about variety release, he said that simply the sheer number of farmers is an important factor. The map, however, aggregates the farmers, so that only the communities are visible. So, this is not a good visual support to make the point about trial size.
I wonder if we could still have separate points on the map, perhaps with some jitter. Also, we could put the number of farmers as a number next to the map (including how many successfully returned results?).
At the scale at which we provide the map, we could simply add a bit of noise instead of aggregating and avoid overplotting
We can indicate that positions are indicative only. But I think it helps to do something that is rather showing the size of the trial rather than its precise location.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When I asked the group about variety release, he said that simply the sheer number of farmers is an important factor. The map, however, aggregates the farmers, so that only the communities are visible. So, this is not a good visual support to make the point about trial size.
I wonder if we could still have separate points on the map, perhaps with some jitter. Also, we could put the number of farmers as a number next to the map (including how many successfully returned results?).
At the scale at which we provide the map, we could simply add a bit of noise instead of aggregating and avoid overplotting
http://lastresortsoftware.blogspot.com/2015/07/graph-based-circle-packing.html
We can indicate that positions are indicative only. But I think it helps to do something that is rather showing the size of the trial rather than its precise location.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: