3 ms·
All these nice graphs, but only few publications get that an indicator towards "better" (more points, fewer milliseconds, more fps, fewer watts) greatly improve
by zeotroph 10y ago
All these nice graphs, but only few publications get that an indicator towards "better" (more points, fewer milliseconds, more fps, fewer watts) greatly improves comprehension speed, especially when multiple graphs using different metrics are used.
<= better
better =>
- simlevesque 10y agoI'm not sure what you are complaining about but there is such an indicator on the graph.
- zeotroph 10y agoIn the linked example it first says "Points" (implying more are better), and then "Lower is better" for some timed benchmark. That is not and indicator but text for which one has to slow down to read it, for skimming over a lot of graphs an arrow or triangle helps a lot, just like the already color-coded bars do. I can't remember where I saw it first, but for me at least it makes quite a difference.
- banachtarski 10y agoBetter is on the top for all the graphs...
- kbenson 10y agoThese are fairly easy to comprehend, as they are sorted from best (at the top) to worst (at the bottom). Having an indicator would be nice, but since all the graphs are sorted, it's fairly obvious.
- jandrese 10y agoThe one at the top is best, so if the top one has the shortest bar then shorter is better. If the top one has the longest bar then longer is better. Plus it says in the title of each graph which way is better. But really, the best way to read the graphs is to look at the labels on the left and see the ranking. You can glance at the bars to get an idea of the magnitude of the difference, but these graphs are really designed to emphasize the ranking.