Talk:Graph drawing

Pigale library

External link: The Pigale library includes the fastest implementation of the planarity testing and embedding algorithms (cf Stop minding your P’s and Q’s : implementing fast and simple DFS-based planarity and embedding algorithm, J.M. Boyer, P.F. Cortese, M. Patrignani, and G. Di Battista, in Graph Drawing, volume 2912 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2004, pages 25–36). Is it sufficient for inclusion in the list? pom 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the standards should be; I am more sure that the list should be short and annotated rather than long and undifferentiated. I only see 541 ghits for pigale (with "graph" thrown in to eliminate the chaff) vs 2.2 million for graphviz (or still 1M if you throw in "graph" to make it more a fair comparison), so it is clearly less notable but still somewhat notable. The question for me is, if we limited the number of links to say six, is Pigale really among the six most important graph drawing links on the web? —David Eppstein 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The two softwares are intrinsicaly differents in their goals: graphviz is application oriented although Pigale is an academic , research oriented software. You won't find a Fary drawing on a linear grid size or a visibility drawing in Graphviz. pom 00:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

May I rename this article to Graph layout(reversing the redirect)? I believe (but may be mistaken) that this is the common term for what is being described here. Rp 13:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

NO. There is an annual conference and several books with "Graph Drawing" in their title. Layout may be used in some contexts, but drawing is the proper title to use for this topic. —David Eppstein 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice (with Google) that "graph drawing" is indeed a popular term, but "graph layout" is about 4 times as popular. So it should at least be in the first sentence. Rp (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Try Google scholar. Graph drawing: 8000 hits. Graph layout: 4000 hits. More to the point, to me, "layout" describes only the vertex placement and edge routing parts of graph drawing, but not the visual appearance of the vertices, edges, and crossings, all of which would be included in graph drawing. On the other hand, graph layout is relevant in VLSI design, in which visual appearance is irrelevant. So they are two highly overlapping but distinct subjects. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense; so the article should probably make this distinction clear. Rp (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image is not good. It's a tree (which always can be drawn planar), but it's not drawn planar. We should have a planar graph with lots of edges, possibly with relation to the four color theorem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.45.95 (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Types of graph drawing: ?

This section is misplaced, I think. It interprets the title as indicating the result, rather than the activity. Types of diagrams are discussed elsewhere (see e.g. diagram). Rp (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "applications" because it's less about different ways of drawing graphs and more about what the purpose of the drawing is. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe it shouldn't be in here at all. A link to diagram or some such page should replace it. Rp (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Many types of diagrams are not graph drawings, but those ones are. I think the only reasonable choice for "some such page" is the one here. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for tool links

What software can be included here? What disqualifies, say, Gephi, that dioesn't disaqualify, say, MSAGL? Let's jot down some explicit criteria here. Rp (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Graph drawing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106004500/http://www.win.tue.nl/~dholten/papers/directed_edges_chi.pdf to http://www.win.tue.nl/~dholten/papers/directed_edges_chi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)