I'm looking at some new options for displaying a percentage value as a fill in a custom shape. Consider the effect to be similar to a "progress thermometer" in a traditional dashboard UI sense.
Considerations
Goal - a graphic element showing a percentage value for a custom report.
Format - Either a full graphic (or infographic) itself, or part of a PDF via Photoshop/InDesign or even iBooks (as an excuse to use it).
Usage - I'd like the process to be programmatic, for re-use. It needs to be accurate, and I'd like the solution to be somewhat object oriented to apply to other datasets and graphical containers. This rules out hand-drawn charting.
Source data - currently a pivot table in Excel, but I can work with any other host as required.
Shape - is a custom vector shape that will originate from Illustrator/Inkscape. final format as best fits resolution and rendering of the report. I would also be interested in any other generative shape ideas (such as java/javascript).
Fill - I'd like to be able to represent the fill as both an actual percentage of total area (true up), and as a percentage of the vertical scale. I'd imagine this flexibility would also help reuse of the method as a fill value against selected object variables (height, area, whatever).
I know I'm being slightly vague in the programming languages or hosts side of things, but this gives me an opportunity to break out of the usual analytic toolchain and scope out some innovative or new solutions. I'm specifically interested in open source solutions, but I'm very keen to review other current methods you might suggest.
This might be a little open ended for you, but d3.js is very powerful. There might be some useful templates on the site, or you can build your own from the library.
If you limit yourself to shapes where the percentage can be easily converted into a new shape by varying one of the dimensions, then the display part can be covered by creating a second shape based on the first one, and filling in 100% of the second shape.
This obviously works best with simple shapes like squares, rectangles, circles, etc, where it is simple to convert "50% of the area" or "75% of the height" into manipulation of vector nodes.
However, things gets significantly more difficult if you want to support genuinely arbitrary custom shapes. One way to handle that would be to break up a complex "progress bar" into "progress pieces" (e.g. a thermometer bulb that represents 10% of total progress, then a simple bar for the remaining 90%).
As has been mentioned, D3 seems like it would meet your needs - here are some simple examples of what I think you are asking:
Changing the fill color of a distinct shape: http://jsfiddle.net/jsl6906/YCMb8/
Changing the 'fill amount' of a simple shape: http://jsfiddle.net/jsl6906/YCMb8/1/
Related
Is there a way to change the clutter perspective for a given container or widget?
The clutter perspective controls how all the clutter actors on the screen are displayed when rotated, translated, scaled, etc.
What I would really like to do is to change the perspective's origin from the center of the screen to another coordinate.
I have messed with a few of the stage methods. However, I haven't had much luck understanding some of the results, and often I hit some stability issues.
I know there are transformation matrices that do all the logic under the hood, and there are documented ways to change the transform matrices. Honestly, I haven't researched much further and just though I would ask for guidance before spending a lot of time on it.
Which leads me to another question regarding the matrices and transformations. Can one of these matrices be used to skew an actor? Or deform it into a trapezoid, etc? And any idea how to get started on that, ie. what a skew matrix would look like?
Finally, does anyone know why the clip path was deprecated? It seems that would have worked for what I ultimately want to do: draw irregular shaped 2d objects on the screen If I can implement an answer to question 2, then I guess a clip box with a transformation can be used here.
1, I do not know if (or how) one might change the Clutter stage's focal point.
2 A skew or shear transformation matrix is easy enough to construct, and can be implemented in the GJS Clutter functions Clutter.Actor.set_transform(T) and Clutter.Actor.set_child_transform(T) where T is a Clutter.Matrix .
This does present another problem, however, for the current codebase; and this leads to another question. (I guess I should post it somewhere else). But, when a transform is set on a clutter actor (or its children), the rest of the actor's properties are ignored. This has the added effect that the Tweener library cannot be used for animation of these properties.
3 Finally, one can use Cairo to draw irregular shaped objects and paths on a Clutter actor, however, the reactive area for the actor (ie. mouse-enter and -leave events) will still be for the entire actor, not defined by the Cairo path.
I have a set of pages that look like this:
I have the content in grids with * Heights and Widths so the grid correctly scales when the entire window resizes. I would like the text to resize with the grid. Basically I would like the user to resize from this:
To this:
(preserving white space)
One way to do this would be to wrap the TextBlock in a ViewBox with margins on the right and bottom (for Grid.Row="3") to account for white space. But because I have several pages with different lengths and line counts I would have to set the margin specifically for each page otherwise the text sizes would differ on each page. Is there a better way to do this??
I don't think there is a better way to do this. There are different ways. But, I think it isn't just a matter of opinion that they would not be better.
Ways I can think of.
Render your text offscreen, rendertargetbitmap that so you've got a picture. Change your textblocks on screen to images and stretch them.
Or
Work out the size your text wants to be. Then do some calculation comes up with a different fontsize which is "better". This is a lot easier to write a description of than do.
In my opinion.
A viewbox is easier to implement. Way less error prone than calculations. Will give at least as good results as rendering to a picture.
I just want to add one more solution to the ones suggested by Andy, which is more of a scientific approach and takes a bit of practice to master.
Suppose you have to find a function F, which maps one or more variables to a desired single value. In your case that would be a function F, which takes aspect ratio of the window as input and outputs an appropriate font size.
How can you find such a function?
Well... you don't need to do any math yourself!
First, you need some data to begin with:
1. Resize the window randomly
2. Calculate aspect ration (X)
3. Pick an appropriate font size that looks good enough (Y)
4. Repeat the measurement 7 to 10 times (sorry data scientists)
5. Enter the data in Excel - one column for X and another one for Y
6. Insert a scatter chart
7. Choose the best trendline for your data, but avoid the polynomial one
8. Display the trendline equation and use the expression in your code
Now I should mention the pros and cons of this regression technique.
Pros:
1. It can solve a wide range of tricky problems:
"I use this 3rd party control, but when the text is too long it overlaps the title bar. How to trim it so it doesn't go beyond the top border?. Deadline is coming!"
2. Even if it doesn't solve the problem perfectly, the results are often acceptable
3. It takes minutes to try out unlike spending a day refreshing your math skills
Cons:
1. The biggest problem is that to keep it simple, you often lower the number of
variables by assuming some of them to be constant. In this post I've assumed that
the font family won't change for example, neither the font weight.
2. If any of the assumptions does not hold the final result could be even worse
This technique is fragile, but powerful. Use it as your last weapon and never leave magic expression like
fontSize = (int)(0.76 + 1.2 * aspectRation) without documenting how it came to be.
I am working on a AR based solution in which I am rendering some 3D models using SceneKit and ARKit. I have also integrated CoreML to identify objects and render corresponding 3D objects in scene.
But right now I am just rendering it in the center of screen as soon I detect the object(Only for the list of objects that I have). Is it possible to get the position of the real world object so that I can show some overlay above the object?
That is if I have a water bottled scanned, I should able to get the position of the water bottle. It could be anywhere in the water bottle but shouldn't go outside of it. Is this possible using SceneKit?
All parts of what you ask are theoretically possible, but a) for several parts, there’s no integrated API to do things for you, and b) you’re probably signing yourself up for a more difficult problem than you think.
What you presumably have with your Core ML integration is an image classifier, as that’s what most of the easy to find ML models do. Image classification answers one question: “what is this a picture of?”
What you’re looking for involves at least two additional questions:
“Given that this image has been classified as containing (some specific object), where in the 2D image is that object?”
“Given the position of a detected object in the 2D video image, where is it in the 3D space tracked by ARKit?”
Question 1 is pretty reasonable. There are models that do both classification and detection (location/bounds within an image) in the ML community. Probably the best known one is YOLO — here’s a blog post about using it with Core ML.
Question 2 is the “research team and five years” part. You’ll notice in the YOLO papers that it gives you only coarse bounding boxes for detected objects — that is, it’s working in 2D image space, not doing 3D scene reconstruction.
To really know the shape, or even the 3D bounding box of an object means integrating object detection with scene reconstruction. For example, if an object has some height in the 2D image, are you looking at a 3D object that’s tall with a small footprint, or one that’s long and low, receding into the distance? Such integration would require taking apart the inner workings of ARKit, which nobody outside Apple can do, or recreating an ARKit-alike from scratch.
There might be some assumptions you can make to get very rough estimates of 3D shape from a 2D bounding box, though. For example, if you do AR hit tests on the lower corners of a box and find that they’re on a horizontal plane, you can guess that the 2D height of the box is proportional to the 3D height of the object, and that its footprint on the plane is proportional to the box’s width. You’d have to do some research and testing to see if assumptions like that hold up, especially in whatever use cases your app covers.
I would like to use D3 to build simple charts with literally hundreds of millions of data points.
Obviously, I won't be attempting to plot millions of points at a time. Only a very, very tiny fraction of those points (<1000) would be in view at any given time. I'll download pre-processed data "on-demand" from the server depending on the current view and zoom level, and would like to use D3's built-in zoom and pan behaviors.
Basically, imagine an infinitely wide bar chart that pans back and forth, and alters itself to show the appropriate level of detail depending on the current zoom level (e.g. semantic zoom).
What techniques are available in D3 to achieve this, yet still have it feel responsive and smooth? What should I avoid doing? Are there any examples of this out there?
Examples: Have a look at Fabian Fischer's BankSafe, an award-winning entry to this year's VAST Challenge. Not sure if the code is available, but the report summarising the techniques he used certainly is. The dataset was also in the order of "hundreds of millions" and - if I remember correctly - had a zoom technique similar to the one you describe.
I would highly recommend you look into using canvas over svg. From what I've seen, having thousands of SVG elements doesn't scale particularly well. Microsoft has a pretty good writeup for how to know which to choose: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/gg193983(v=vs.85).aspx#Using_Canvas_AndOr_SVG
I am developing my system using WPF with MVVM and I am having trouble to find out the best way to solve the following problem:
I have a screen in which many components (User Controls) are drawn at specific positions. All components in the screen are rotated, translated and scaled according to binded variables calculated by the screen's VM.
However, each of this components could have a different center for the rotation, a different origin for the translation and a different scale, dependent of internal variables and the screen scale.
How is it possible to make this transformations calculated internally in the User Control? I think the easier approach is using the Converter, however since I have many different User Controls with different behaviours, I would have to create multiple converters very similar to each other, which would not be the ideal solution.
Thank you very much for the help!
A UIElement has only one RenderTransformOrigin.
Some transformations allow you to set the origin for that transformation but in coordinates relative to the control bounds (e.g.: 125, 34) not in proportional coordinates like the RenderOrigin (e.g.: 0.5, 0.75)
So if you can use the coordinates you're good to go.
If not, you could compose the transformations by creating Transformation groups that first translate the control, then perform the transformation, and then translate the control back.
If you need more help, please post an example of what you are trying to achieve.