gzz-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gzz-commits] manuscripts/FilletArt filletart.rst


From: Tuomas J. Lukka
Subject: [Gzz-commits] manuscripts/FilletArt filletart.rst
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 15:25:49 -0400

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/gzz
Module name:    manuscripts
Changes by:     Tuomas J. Lukka <address@hidden>        03/05/10 15:25:48

Modified files:
        FilletArt      : filletart.rst 

Log message:
        edit

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/manuscripts/FilletArt/filletart.rst.diff?tr1=1.5&tr2=1.6&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: manuscripts/FilletArt/filletart.rst
diff -u manuscripts/FilletArt/filletart.rst:1.5 
manuscripts/FilletArt/filletart.rst:1.6
--- manuscripts/FilletArt/filletart.rst:1.5     Sat May 10 15:19:28 2003
+++ manuscripts/FilletArt/filletart.rst Sat May 10 15:25:48 2003
@@ -70,11 +70,15 @@
 grouping of the node and the connection.
 
 The only disruptions in a fillet graph will be when the connections cross
-each other. Line crossing is one serious factor making it hard to read
-complex node-link graphs. With fillets, tracing a connection is
+each other. 
+This makes a complex filleted graph is far easier to read than a box-line
+graph, because in box-line graphs disruptions occur not only at line crossings
+but also where the lines connect to the boxes, making the two situations
+hard to distinguish.
+With fillets, tracing a connection is
 perceptually easy even if it crosses with other connections.
 
-We tested the easiness of perceiving fillets in a controlled laboratory
+We tested the ease of perceiving fillets in a controlled laboratory
 experiment with ten naïve participants. Eight different graphs were
 tested, of which one was implemented with "perfect" fillets. The other
 seven graphs were "incomplete" fillets or different common node-link




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]