making a line graph instead of a bar chart of the rain rate might prevent some of the confusion
Indeed @sunny, the vertical bar being displayed once-in-a-while does not express what is really happening with the rain rate - because the rain rate changes quite often and quite rapidly there is no way vertical bars can reliably express the rain rate.
What would be really be, as @dsj mentioned, ‘having our cake and eating it too’ would be to have two line graphs (one for the rain rate and one for the rain accumulation) and, at the top of the graphic screen, under the date/time, the values for both the current rain rate and the rain accumulation for the current day.
Hey, Christmas is coming in a few weeks… Maybe we might get a new rain graphic…
Actually, the bar graph shows the same thing a line graph would show. The line graph doesn’t work well for the “rate” because there are often periods of “no rain” so you get a really jagged, spikey line.
This is similar to the idea we’ve put on the backlog: multiple ways to view the rain data, similar to the way we have multiple ways to see lightning data. It will be a while before that rises to the top of the priority queue, but it’s on the list now!
even for a line graph you would need to take the average rain rate for some period of time. The advantage of a line graph is that the interval can be way shorter then with the bargraph. It should be a bit more spikey.
Well, that is exactly what needs to be seen, a jagged, spikey line that represent exactly how much liquid (rain) falls on the sensor.
I do hope, whenever the time comes, that I will be able to get rid of the vertical bars as they do not, in my view (with more than 10 years at maintaining a weather station) do not give me a goo representation of the rain rate…
Currently it looks like any graph from weatherflow shows only about 30 points or so, and the rest of the line is just interpolated and doesn’t add any real information (just makes it look nicer). My screen on my phone or my desktop has a resolution to show a lot more data points. Given a certain line width it could show sensible details upto 300 data points or so. This might not be the best thing for every graph, but currently there is a lot of wasted screen space.
Here are some examples (data from my WiFi scale) showing that detailed graphs might be useful and still look good. Both examples do add a smooth line to show the average trends. The first one seems to show all the data, the other one behaves differently at different zoom levels.
Weatherflow doesn’t store all the data, but it could try to show more detail in what it did store.
As a follow-up to this, we’ve got a solution that should let everyone “have their cake and eat it”. The proposal is to have more than one rain graph (similar to how we have more than one lightning graph currently), as follows:
- (default) “Rain Accumulation” - A line graph that shows the daily accumulation (same as now without the blue bars).
- “Rain Intensity” A bar graph that shows the maximum qualitative intensity (light, moderate, etc.) for the time window selected.
- “Rain Rate” A bar graph that shows the average quantitative rate (1.2 inches/hour, 2.3 mm/hour, etc.) for the time window selected.
I like ice cream and pie
if it is going to be a separate graph for rain rate, why not make it a line chart (with a higher horizontal (time) resolution than the bar graph. My guess is that the higher resolution prevents some of the confusion that was associated with the rate.
In general I think it would be good if many graphs could be presented in one panel. (but of course it shouldn’t be overcrowded). Previously you had rain intensity and rain rate in one graph, but it could be more general. This allows us to see more at once and ‘discover’ correlations between air temperature and rain (for example). Perhaps change the webversion so the selection of which graphs to show are basically toggles, so when for example rain rate, rain intensity, wind speed, air temperature are all toggled on, we get to see all the graphs (in one panel, or perhaps easier, just 4 panels below each other (we would likely scroll down to see the bottom panel). Zoom levels should be the same for all panels.
Having multiple graphs makes this ‘discovery’ easier and also allows rain intesity and rain rate to be seen at the same time.
How does that sound?
I would also like to be able to see actual rain rate on the main screen. Maybe a switch in settings to choose descriptive or actual to be displayed?
The Sky does sorta look like an ice cream cone.
I have no opinion on adding rain graphs if they make sense from a consumer-level perspective, assuming that it doesn’t become a slippery slope to implement more detailed reporting that in the past was relegated to third-party developers.
One of the Sky’s most unique features is the ability to measure rainfall rate “almost” instantaneously…and not by counting 0.25mm (0.01") bucket tips over a fixed time period. Might as well display it out to 40 decimal places if the data is available…
It’s an unfixed period of time which is what I don’t like. Air reports by time and tipping buckets report by volume.
I’d rather have rain reported by the time than by volume.
Would like to see in any one of the graphs, actual amount for the time window selected.
As for graphs, Please keep it to the simplest level. Don’t overwhelm users with information that most will not understand.
Leave the detailed graphs for individuals and third-party applications. PLEASE don’t bloat the applications with data that 90% of your customers will not use.
@garyfunk, the trick is not to “keep it at the simplest level”, the trick is to display the info in a way that people understand it and is still useful, meaningful and insightful. People probably buy this great weather station because they are interested more in the weather then other people. That curiosity needs input :-).
I’m all in favor of a nice and simplistic user interface, as far as it goes. But there is no reason to make it overly simplistic, The temperature should not be just cold, warm, hot. The wind shouldn’t be just weak or strong, The accumulated rain shouldn’t be just none, some and a lot, nor should the rain rate be just light, heavy and extreme. We buy these weather stations for the numbers and the graphs. and most people do.
(actually I bought one because I wanted to support this ultrasonic wind meter and the innovative rain meter).
Weatherflow is in the position to make it the best user experience possible. Some things have just multiple solutions, some depend on the user’s preferences. This could be done by creating options for users to customize their experience or Weatherflow has to make the best choice for the user. They have the expertise to do so. Yet, I hope they appreciate the input from the users.
That is the key. The best for whom?
I bought into this project, not because I have a direct interest in weather (I have experts for that) but that it will interface “directly” with home automation without having an Internet connection.
The big issue here, none of us are qualified to – nor have the insight – as to what the mass consumer wants. We are not the target audience. We are programmers, developers, weather watchers and otherwise elite users.
David, a fourth option is needed … even if you do not like it!
- “Rain Rate” A line graph that shows the current rate (1.2 inches/hour, 2.3 mm/hour, etc.) as a continuous changing line.
good question, but I kind of addressed this in the words directly following it. Different users have different preferences. An option to select the best way for a specific user is one way to handle your question, If not, as I said, “Weatherflow has to make the best choice for the user. They have the expertise to do so. Yet, I hope they appreciate the input from the users”
But in your case, it doesn’t matter, you don’t care about the weather (you have experts for that), as long as your home automation is working. (which is great that weatherflow makes that possible)
This is the same as #3, above - line or bar, it’s the same data. And since there are so many periods of zero rain, the bar tends to work better than the line.
my guess is that with ‘continuous changing line’ he means a line with better horizontal, time resulotion, so more points on the horizontal axis.