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
As a new user, I found the default coloring confusing. red/green for not-covered/covered makes sense, but red for much covered and green for not so much?
I do like the heavy/med/light coloring mode, I haven't seen that elsewhere, but I think it should follow the color convention of the covered/not-covered. May I suggest red/orange/yellow/green for none/light/med/heavy?
(and I'd like a quick toogle for using backgrounds instead of fringes, but that's another story)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hm, maybe red/green/light-green/white or red/green/teal/blue would work for heatmap-style highlighting. That would preserve the "red is bad; green is good" idea in the fringe, but also provide the user with the heatmap data. We might even be able to tint it linearly/logarithmically based on the data, rather than arbitrary thresholds.
As a new user, I found the default coloring confusing. red/green for not-covered/covered makes sense, but red for much covered and green for not so much?
I do like the heavy/med/light coloring mode, I haven't seen that elsewhere, but I think it should follow the color convention of the covered/not-covered. May I suggest red/orange/yellow/green for none/light/med/heavy?
(and I'd like a quick toogle for using backgrounds instead of fringes, but that's another story)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: