On 2015年02月18日 2:39 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Feb 16, 2015 3:39 PM, "Eric Firing" <ef...@ha...> wrote: >> >> On 2015年02月16日 1:29 PM, Michael Waskom wrote: >> >>> Nathaniel's January 9 message in that thread (can't figure out how to >>> link to it in the archives) had a suggestion that I thought was very >>> promising, to do something similar to Parula but rotate around the hue >>> circle the other direction so that the hues would go blue - purple - red >>> - yellow. I don't think we've seen an example of exactly what it would >>> look like, but I reckon it would be similar to the middle colormap here >>> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/elegantfigures/files/2013/08/three_perceptual_palettes_618.png >>> (from the elegant figures block series linked above), which I've always >>> found quite attractive. >> >> Certainly it can be considered--but we have to have a real implementation. > > While I hate to promise vaporware, I actually was planning to have a > go at implementing such a colormap in the next few weeks, based on > optimizing the same set of parameters that viscm visualizes... FWIW. It might be worth quite a bit--and the sooner, the better. > > Are we planning to make other default appearance changes at the same > time? The idea of changing the color cycle and/or dot-dash cycle has > already come up in this thread, and this earlier thread proposed > several more good ideas [1]: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.matplotlib.devel/13128/focus=13166 Thank you for the link. The ideas certainly deserve review at this point. There is some danger in that the more things we try to change, the harder it might be to approach consensus. > > I agree that now is definitely the time to get serious about making > these changes, but it seems like there's enough to be worked out that > sticking to the original plan and keeping mainline quasi-frozen until > 2.0 is ready might create frustration and hasty decisions. Maybe it > would be less stressful all around if we let mainline development > proceed at whatever pace makes sense while these things get sorted > out, and then once the appearance changes are ready make the call > about whether to cut a quick 1.5 first or not? Presumably these > defaults will stick around for many years so it's worth taking a few > months to get a complete proposal together, get feedback, etc., IMO. Good point; this can work provided we can keep the momentum up, so that we actually converge on a feasible proposal. > > In an ideal world version 1.last might even provide a > style.use("matplotlib2") command to preview what 2.0 will do, just > like 2.0 will presumably have a style.use("matplotlib1") command for > those who want to (temporarily) revert. I like this style-based preview idea. Eric > > -n > > [1] well I would think that wouldn't I ;-) >
