Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[idea] Make nodes with more connections larger #23

Closed
MaxBayly opened this issue Jul 10, 2020 · 6 comments
Closed

[idea] Make nodes with more connections larger #23

MaxBayly opened this issue Jul 10, 2020 · 6 comments

Comments

@MaxBayly
Copy link

To show which nodes are the 'hubs' of the graph, it might be nice to be able to display nodes with lots of edges as larger, or make node size a function of connection count (maybe this falls under "Configurable parameters of graph simulation." in the roadmap?)

@wgslr
Copy link
Contributor

wgslr commented Jul 10, 2020

Personally, I feel like the edges themselves are visible enough to draw attention to the nodes with many of them. I'm not sure making the nodes larger would improve readability of the graph. If anything, I would reserve such markings to things that are not visible otherwise in the graph (e.g. note length, although I don't see actual need for that).

Also, this issue seems very similar to #17 , perhaps it's best to move any further discussion there.

@nixsee
Copy link

nixsee commented Jul 28, 2020

I have to disagree with @wgslr and agree with @MaxBayly - in a large graph, the edges will look like a hairball. If the major nodes are larger, it will be easier to find them and start to make sense of the graph.

Here's an example from Obsidian.

image

Conversely, the same dataset in Foam/Markdown Links:

image

Putting aside the fact that the force simulation parameters are wild and I can't even zoom out far enough to see it all, its very difficult to find the central nodes in each cluster.

Also, when you hover a node, Obsidian highlights its connected links and nodes, and fades the rest:

image

@tchayen
Copy link
Owner

tchayen commented Aug 18, 2020

@nixsee I was just about to let you know that similar thing is being worked on but I noticed that you are already well aware of that 😅 .

So in case somebody else is looking: #51.

@nixsee
Copy link

nixsee commented Aug 18, 2020

Could probably close this issue given #51?

@tchayen
Copy link
Owner

tchayen commented Aug 18, 2020

Until #51 is merged, it remains an open issue though 😄 .

@MaxBayly
Copy link
Author

MaxBayly commented Sep 2, 2020

Seems like this has been implemented with #51 , nice!

@MaxBayly MaxBayly closed this as completed Sep 2, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants