While I understand how arrows on the end of the edge is a bad idea, especially if you have a lot of edges on one node; what about having arrows blended in the edge itself? Something like this (beware the ASCII art): o---->----o
Visualizing Directed Edges in Graphs: Don't Use Arrows
11–17 of 17 posts
Re: Visualizing Directed Edges in Graphs: Don't Use Arrows
#12It's only better if you -- by reading up on convention beforehand -- know which way an edge points; does decreasing thickness indicate an incident node, or the opposite? Not clear on its own.
It's an arrowhead. It goes in the direction it points. For example, (A -> B) is drawn: A @===---- B
Re: Visualizing Directed Edges in Graphs: Don't Use Arrows
#13Re: Visualizing Directed Edges in Graphs: Don't Use Arrows
#14Re: Visualizing Directed Edges in Graphs: Don't Use Arrows
#15It's only better if you -- by reading up on convention beforehand -- know which way an edge points; does decreasing thickness indicate an incident node, or the opposite? Not clear on its own.
Agreed; my initial interpretation was thinking of the tapered edges as comet tails or motion blur, which is the opposite direction to what they want to depict.
Re: Visualizing Directed Edges in Graphs: Don't Use Arrows
#16Re: Visualizing Directed Edges in Graphs: Don't Use Arrows
#17It's only better if you -- by reading up on convention beforehand -- know which way an edge points; does decreasing thickness indicate an incident node, or the opposite? Not clear on its own.
Actually, if I'm reading the paper properly, no it's not. The authors appear to have found that both the light-to-dark and the dark-to-light styles performed significantly better than arrows, and that the tapering effect was better still.
This seems reasonable to me: even if you're unsure about the convention at first, you probably only have to find one obvious edge to establish which way things "point".