Talk:Color coding in data visualization

Requested move 17 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Color coding in data visualization per consensus. However, the title seems to be the least of the article's problems. No such user (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Color coding technology for visualization → Color coding in data visualization – Current title is odd and too weasel with the "technology" put in. Open to other suggestions. Artoria2e5 🌉 11:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support – the "technology" seems superfluous – it makes the title more confusing and less concise. The article has content problems too. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. An improvement, but I can't help thinking that if this is even an encyclopedic topic there must be a still better title. Hard to tell as the article as it stands is atrocious, it has a daunting list of references but still reads so much like original research that I'm guessing it is just that. Andrewa (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

RobertCCarter (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC) The proposal is to change the title from Color Coding Technology for Visualization to Color Coding in Data Visualization. In essence, the proposal is to remove the qualifier "Technology" and to add the qualifier "Data" with a change of preposition (from "for" to "in"). It is true that an application of the information in the article is data visualization. But there are additional visualization applications, beyond data visualization. For instance a professor of Design contacted me about this Wikipedia article, to tell me that his students are using the principles from the article to select colors for items they are designing, to make the items salient in their color environment. The article mentions safety and signal colors. I recently saw an exhibit at a museum in New York City, where conspicuously-colored floor lines helped patrons to find their way to different destinations in the museum. I have had discussions with architects who see applications to architecture. An acquaintance has used principles from this Wikipedia article to design packaging and labeling to enhance their conspicuousness in a marketing context. As indicated in the article, new applications (of color coding technology for visualization) are continually being created. Limiting the title to "Data" visualization would violate the "precision" criterion for titles by being over-specific when the topic is more general. I apologize that the proposer finds references to technology "tiresome". There are non-technological approaches to color coding, I acknowledge. I respect non-technological, artistic, approaches; but those approaches are not the subject of this article. A major textbook (cited in the article and used by teachers and practitioners) is Principles of Color Technology. My professor Fred Billmeyer wrote the book and Roy Berns has updated subsequent editions. The international standards organization, CIE, continues to develop color technology of the type described in this and other Wikipedia articles linked to this one. Technology isn't a "weasel". It is an important descriptor indicating what kind of information is in the article. Just as adding "Data" narrows the scope of the title too much, eliding "Technology" broadens it too much. Here again the precision principle for Wikipedia titles applies, as well as recognizability and consistency with usage elsewhere (e.g., the textbook title). Good point about problems with sRGB. I used sRGB to bring the reader into this technological way of thinking about color (in terms of coordinates) before making a seque to tristimulus values (a better coordinate system) and color difference calculations. I'm open to other titles. Color Coding Technology for Salience? Color Coding Technology for Conspicuousness? Color Coding Technology? I used the term Visualization in the title because the genesis of the article was a pro-bono talk I gave in Manhattan NYC to people (from many firms) who make their living creating visualizations. That experience gave me an indication that the word Visualization is recognizable and natural for a segment of potential readers of the Wikipedia article. Thank you for your interest in this article, and for caring enough to make suggestions for improvement. My personal style is conflict avoidance, so I may not engage further if the tone of the suggestions is hostile. RobertCCarter (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your mentors obviously didn't care much for paragraph breaks. That last contribution is almost as bad as the current article. And are we talking about visual recognition? That's rather ironical. Long paragraphs make this more difficult. See How not to rant.

And I'm sorry if you see this as hostile, I am trying to be gentle but I think we need to call a spade a spade if we are to make something worthwhile of this article, and not waste all of your hard work. Andrewa (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

RobertCCarter (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC) I appreciate your constructiveness, Andrew. My "hostility detectors" were set off by other participants' comments. For example “Uh. Whatever.” “This is getting tiresome.” “the article as it stands is atrocious”

With regard to articulation of our thoughts in paragraphs, I worry that this talk page is conflating multiple issues. I entered via a link related to the proposed title change. Many comments here (from others) seem to aim at improved style of the body of the article. To me it seems that style of the body is a separate issue from the title.

My comments here are focused on the title-change proposal. I particular I have argued for keeping the word "technology" in the title 1) to distinguish this approach from more-artistic color coding such as that based on judgment or the Munsell Color System, and 2) for consistency with sources of the technological approach to color, described for example in Principles of Color Technology by Roy Berns. I have suggested that, if others want to modify "visualization" in the title, "information" would be a better modifier than "data." The result might be Color Coding Technology for Information Visualization or Color Coding Technology for Visualization of Information. My arguments were elaborated below; I concatenated my comments to the end of the discussion. (This is my first comment-by-insertion.) RobertCCarter (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps, coming as an intelligent but ignorant reader, I am missing the point here, which demonstrates the title is not WP:PRECISE. I note that Color coding technology and Colour coding technology are red, as are Color-coding technology and Colour-coding technology. Nice that WP uses colour coding on links :)

I also note that Color coding and Color-coding go to different places, as do Colour coding and Colour-coding.

I regard any title with "technology" with some suspicion: we don't have wheel technology or fire technology. But the point being missed is that colour requires visualisation for it to mean much, that is, we see colours. It's the "visualization" that really is redundant, but since "data visualization" is a compound noun we can't just drop it. Since data visualization is a technology it seems then to be WP:CONCISE to drop "technology".

Therefore I support the move as proposed. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

PS. The essential problem is that "data visualization" is a misnomer. Its aim is to create media (visual aids) for some reader... it is ultimately the reader who visualzes the data; the writer merely presents it. Yet apparently data presentation means something else... but how does Colour coding of information or Colour coding of data differ from plain old colour coding? Is it the numerical (or at least mathematical) relation of the coding? For example, electrical wiring is colour-coded, but the colours are not related to any physical quantities: the blue wire is the same underneath as the brown. The colour of the insulation is not related to the wire's heft, material, current-carrying capacity, age etc.. (Complex cable may have colour-coded year threads...) 85.67.32.244 (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Merge this into Color code and move that title to Color-coding (now proposed on that page). BD2412 T 23:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Salient

The section on salient colors is oddly written and focused. My issues with it are as follows:

• The direct use of RGB and simple algorithmic transformations like HSL are widely known to be problematic, yet it stays as a recommendation here. See ColorBrewer and friends.
  • About the "said to have low saturation"... Uh. Whatever.
• RGB space might be "device-dependent", but we are on a website where everything is specified to be sRGB. Browsers actually handle the conversion on wide-gamut displays to make sure it is mostly device-independent.
• Optical measurements are pointless when you are designing things on a computer. Be it print or be it display, the computer knows the XYZ values. (If not, you measure once to do calibration, not for each color you make!)
• N things can be formed into n(n-1)/2 pairs need no ref, let alone a graph. That's literally "n choose 2", or Combination.
• Why is it all CRT? Even though we are using sRGB, a model of "the average CRT consumer display", the values are not driving the displays directly any more; the display actively converts them.
• "Technical color measurements" – another use of the tech-word. This is getting tiresome.

--Artoria2e5 🌉 11:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

RobertCCarter (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC) There is a message in the article (presumably placed by Wikipedia staff) that reads "This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (July 2021) " But on the talk page there is no relevant discussion. There is no mention of any particular fact being disputed. There are no citations of factual information conflicting with what is written in the article. All I see is the opinion of one writer who makes clear that they disapprove, in general. They object to my mention of display RGB coordinates of colors. This was my way to efficiently introduce a naive reader to the idea of color coordinates, before a segue to international standard tristimulus value coordinates. Incidentally, the algorithm I have published (and cited in the article) to optimize color codes, starts with RGB coordinates and translates them to tristimulus values. Roy Berns, in his textbook Principles of Color Technology presents a numerical example of colorimetry of a computer-controlled CRT display (starting with RGB coordinates, which he calls "digital counts" of intensity levels of the three phosphors). The late Lou Silverstein, inventor of many color-related patents and developer of the color-coded Boeing "glass flight deck", so admired my algorithm (involving starting with RGB enroute to tristimulus-value calculations) that he adopted the method at Honeywell and published an enhanced version of the algorithm, as cited in the Wikipedia article. The complainant's presentation is very different from stating an error of factual accuracy. I am eager to delete or correct any mistaken information that is specifically identified. I have taken care about the factual accuracy of the information in the article. I did relevant research over a period of 50 years and had the resulting publications (cited in the article) subjected to anonymous peer review managed by arms-length editors of many different journals. In addition, the preponderance of references cited (and all of the links) were published by other authors. To verify the content of this Wikipedia article, I had the text read by research professor of optometry, by a PhD industrial engineer whose whose career focused on use of color on US government displays (e.g., Air Force and FAA air traffic control), by a private sector PhD physicist who is director of research at a corporation selling color applications and by a European professor of design who is expert in color technology. They made many suggestions that improved the article, but they identified no factual errors. The complainant's only citation is "ColorBrewer and friends". I had asked Professor Brewer to read the text of the Wikipedia article, before submitting it to Wikipedia, but I received no reply from her. I have admired her work for many years, and gave it a link in the Wikipedia article. Can we please get specific about the particular facts whose accuracy is being disputed, and the evidentiary or rational basis (e.g., a citation or explanation) for the proposed alternative to a disputed fact presented in the article? I look forward to improving the article in this way, and to the removal of the "factual accuracy is disputed" message. Thank you. RobertCCarter (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

RobertCCarter (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC) In the interest of completeness, let us consider another topic raised by Artoria. Although not a disputed fact, Artoria suggested that Figure 4 could be substituted by a statement that the number of color differences in an n-color color code is the combination of n things taken two at a time. I judged that such a succinct (but mathematically sophisticated) statement might not have meaning for many potential readers. On the other hand, Figure 4 makes it graphically clear that, as the number of colors in the color code increases, the number of color differences increases disproportionately. All these color differences must be contained within the limited and constant gamut of the color medium. The context explains that the objective is to maximize the minimum color difference in the color code, because a color code can be vitiated by its smallest color differences (due to the shape of the color discrimination curve versus color difference, Figure 3). Identifying and maximizing the minimum color-difference is more difficult when there are more color differences in the color code. That is why the article states that a systematic method is required when the number of colors increases. Figure 4 shows why “maximizing the minimum color difference” is disproportionately-harder as the number of colors in the color code increases. RobertCCarter (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

RobertCCarter (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Here are two more thoughts I hope will aid your deliberations: 1) With regard to narrowing the title to Data Visualization, before submitting it I had the draft Wikipedia article read by a professional history writer and designer of museum exhibits. He was enthusiastic, and particularly liked the idea of aligning salience (provided by color coding) with relevance. He envisioned applications of Color Coding Technology for Visualization to design of exhibits (far beyond the limits of Data Visualization). This is in addition to other reasons I gave, in earlier talk submissions, not to narrow the scope of the title. 2) A venerable mentor of a much younger me offered that, “When editing a composition, it is wise to delete your favorite paragraph, sentence or turn of phrase.” It occurs to me now that the complementary principle is to add something you do not like that a critic suggests for your composition. I will submit to Color Coding Technology for Visualization a new sentence: “Although they are intuitive and widely used in computer applications, RGB coordinates are not as satisfactory as some alternative coordinate systems for color.” This statement will reference ColorBrewer and friends, as suggested by Artoria. As for the computer applications, my first submission included mention of MS Word, Excel and Powerpoint, but a Wikipedia editor countered that mention of brand names in Wikipedia is inadmissible. I had explained in that draft that RGB coordinates are accessed in MS apps by clicking “More colors” and then “Custom.” Perhaps this universal use of RGB supports my use of them in the Wikipedia article as a way to introduce the reader to the concept of color coordinates. The final section of the article cites contemporary research to to develop device-independent color rendering. I got these references from watching a recent Optical Society of America seminar on the topic. So I am surprised by Artoria's statement that this technology exists already: "the values are not driving the displays directly any more; the display actively converts them." Belaboring such R&D arcana would be a distraction from the objective of the article, to introduce a reader to ideas about use of color to make objects or image segments salient. Artoria says that CRT "optical measurements are pointless", but one of my readers has made a career of this activity claimed to be pointless. I agree with Artoria that this is part of display calibration (which is essential rather than pointless). RobertCCarter (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

RobertCCarter (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC) I suggest "Color Coding Technology for Information Visualization". This is a move in the direction you proposed, to describe Visualization with some modifier. Information is data that are relevant to our interests or (more technically) to a decision. This usage is consistent with information theory, physics, psychology, finance theory, computer science and other parts of our culture. All information is data but not all data are information, so information is a more specific term that is most germane to our subject. I already described reasons not to delete "technology" from the title. The word technology is in the title of a prominent textbook on Principles of Color Technology, describing principles used in this article. So the use of the word is consistent. Use of the word "technology" differentiates this technical approach to color coding from non-technical approaches such as those based on the Munsell system of color notation. (Munsell was an artist.) My color-technology colleagues respect and study the Munsell system, but in their work they use tristimulus values (sometimes calculated for RGB coordinates of particular displays) and calculated color difference, as advocated in this article. Calculated color difference is a modern technological attempt to do better at what Munsell did (more than a century ago) with artistic judgment of perceptually-equally-spacing of colors. Modern color science is an historically-uneasy collaboration of technical people and artistic people; this is a fascinating history but it is too controversial and potentially incendiary to have been wise to explore in this Wikipedia article. Some remarks on this talk page reflect the unease between the two cultures of color. The collaboration of artists (contributing the concept of equal perceptible differences of color) and scientists (contributing objective measurement and theoretical calculations) has been very fruitful (e.g., read the book Billmeyer and Saltzman's Principles of Color Technology, by Roy Berns). RobertCCarter (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)