This is an archive of past discussions about File:Pi-unrolled.gif. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page is was a discussion of Image:Pi-unrolled-old4.gif. Your suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Another illustration of the same concept, from Commons.

π

Archive: [1]

FP?

Astonishing to me that this image was a FP nominee. Many criticisms were raised and if there is any chance of reconciling opponents, I'm willing to rework it again. At time of this writing, you see the 4th iteration of this work. Yes, I'm willing to do a 5th -- but please, not a 6th. Make your adjustments now.

Please don't argue! This is a picture, a graphic design, not a mathematical purity. Nothing done here will be perfect. I need to see a clear statement of what needs to be improved, not pie-in-the-sky what-ifs.

Old critique

Let me start the ball rolling by picking out and replying to some points raised at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/pi:

Pi is a scalar quantity, not an area. I accept the point although these are not the words in which it was put. Having set up the plane in linear units, it seems obvious that if the diameter of the circle is 1 unit, then the circumference is π units, not π square units.

Consensus leans firmly against the final rectangle. Gone.

Nasty colors. Gee, they work for me. The color scheme underwent a great deal of criticism once; the current version is a response to this. If you want a color change, edit this palette.

No antialiasing. Animated GIF is an old, somewhat tricky format. Antialiasing would increase file size dramatically. Are you sure you want this?

Too small. This is another file size problem. How big do you want it? It would be much easier to build a larger animation -- but will the little kids on dialup in Nairobi be able to see it?

Why is the plumb bob shaped like a heart? Because it's a plumb bob and plumb bobs are shaped like hearts. Would anyone feel a diamond-shaped plumb bob less objectionable?

Too fast. Sorry; the complaint about the old version was "too slow".

Jumping Billy

With the final rectangle gone, I no longer see purpose in laying out the number line on center with the marching circles at start, then jumping from midpoint to a position resting on the number line. That jump takes up frames and doesn't add anything itself.

My current plan is to place the number line near the bottom of the frame, march the circles on the number line, then return to start for the roll. What say you? John Reid 08:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Seven spokes, none distinguished

There's a technical reason for the 7 spokes -- quite aside from the artistic representation of a wheel. When working up the frames, I only needed to create the wheel in 3 positions. If you deconstruct the GIF, you'll see what I mean. The wheel starts at position 0 in frame 2000 (my arbitrary numbering system) with one spoke pointing directly down; in frame 2001 it rotates 1/21st of a full turn; in frame 2002, 2/21st; in frame 2003; having rotated through 3/21st (1/7th) of a full turn another spoke is pointing directly down and I get to re-use the wheel from frame 2000. Thus, throughout the animation, there are only 3 wheels.

If there were, say, only 3 spokes and I wanted to preserve the same smoothness of motion -- 21 frames in the course of the full turn -- I'd need to build 7 wheels. If only one spoke, or any number of spokes with one distinguished, I need to build 21 wheels; only after the full length of circumference paint has been laid out do I get to re-use wheels.

I'm not saying no; I'm saying this is a big increase in work. I think we all agree that a distinguished spoke will make for a better illustration. If you want me to do this, you need to agree on all the other stuff because I really don't want to do this again for nothing.

Notes

This is not an abstract representation. It's a concrete depiction of a wooden wheel rolling along with a piece of string tied to the axle and a plumb bob at the bottom end of the string. It's not photorealistic but it's not intended to be removed from all reality. The wheel is brown and has spokes because it's a wheel, not an abstract circle; the plumb bob is shaped like a heart because it's a plumb bob -- not merely the endpoint of an arbitrary line segment.

Those who really want the minimalist look should promote the Japanese version from Commons (also shown on this page, above). Both are shown (at the moment) on the article page; I don't really think both are needed.

You get a colored background (a) so it doesn't blend into the page and (b) so it's not so boring. Pick a color -- anything but white, black, and gray, please.

You Guys

If you want me -- John Reid, the creator of the first several revisions of this graphic -- to redo the job one more time, you are going to have to form a consensus. This page is not some sort of open-ended discussion. It's intended to be a place where you can adjust the specifications of this graphic to address your concerns. Imagine that your words are being implemented directly into the graphic.

Up to now, editors have come onto this page with long, detailed expositions. This is useless in terms of building consensus.

Hey, great idea! Hey, that's a great idea too. Wow, that's a really neato idea also. Hmmm! I wonder if we could do this or this or that.

This is not the brainstorming phase of this project. Or rather, if it is, then you have got a snowball's chance in a fiery hell of seeing me turn out a new revision. You may have wonderful ideas but I am only going to build one new revision, not a galaxy of them.

When this graphic made it to FPC, there was specific criticism of certain elements. This is your opportunity to correct these deficiencies. I need to see consensus form around the specifications as you edit them right here, right now. You need to understand that you are all commenting on one thing.

I'm moving the specs section down to the bottom of the page. Fair warning: Any more verbose comments, I'm just going to delete -- not to be rude but because they contribute nothing actionable. Just edit these specs to the point at which you would support this graphic for FP. If you can't do that, there's no point in investing the hours needed to crank out another revision. Okay? John Reid 10:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If I understand your position, you are only interested in minor tweaks to the existing animation. A change of color here, a different line-width there, that kind of thing. The tools at your disposal make animation laborious, and produce only large GIFs. Having animated a cartoon character using pencil and paper, I appreciate the difficulties.

I think this animation can be improved within those constraints, but something even better can be created outside them. For example, using SVG we can animate easily, without jaggies. Meanwhile, see below. --KSmrq^T 00:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I might note that the specs below have already incorporated major changes to the design. Little or nothing will be salvagable from previous versions; I'll be starting nearly from scratch.

I dislike to channel discussion any more than is necessary. I'm willing to consider fairly major changes but I doubt that a consensus can form behind such. This is really the key point. I'm just not willing to build another revision "on spec"; I've done 4 already. So, I'm not too receptive to what-about-this comments. This project is not going to get another 4 revisions from me, to pick and choose from. I'll do one more and that's it. The community can then make it an FP or not, use it or not, use a prior revision or not, use the Japanese version or not, or delete all or none.

You only get one pick, so make it a good one.

As for SVG, sorry, but it's not ready for general use. It displays badly in some browsers. For all its many evils, animated GIF is well established -- and although some such images don't display properly either, I can at least state confidently that I can produce an animated GIF that will display well in nearly any modern browser.

You are welcome to produce an SVG copy of anything on this project that's under free license. If you seriously want to build an SVG, you might like to request the vector workfile from me. It is, of course, in Macromedia FreeHand.

Thanks for your edits to the specs. Please ask your friends to visit here as well and either edit further or endorse. Thank you. John Reid 11:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

EDIT THESE SPECS

Don't argue, don't comment here. Just edit the specs as you want to see them. If this section ever stabilizes, I'll consider a new version.

Palette:

Function	Sample	Hex triplet
background		#fcfcfc
number line		#0081cd
wagon wheel		#fec200
circumference		#bc1e47
pi		#000000

Size: 360×132

Antialiasing: only digits and "π"

Spokes: 7, none distinguished

Plumb: None

Speed: about 0.4 units per second

Rectangle: none

Jump: none

Endorse

If the specs meet with your approval now, endorse here with your sig. No need to worry about which specs revision you are endorsing; I'll root through history to make the connection. You only need to endorse here if the specs are okay at the moment you hit the page. Otherwise, just edit these specs directly. Again, I'm fully competent to judge consensus through examination of history. Thank you. John Reid 10:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorsing...I like the background at a very light gray, say, 5% black, but I'm not sure how to convert that to a Hex triplet for the table. If someone can do that then that would be great. (On Microsoft Paint it displayed Hue:160, Sat:0, Lum:238, with RGB as (252,252,252)). Sorry for not not being able to simply say "endorse", John, but I do endorse the specs as I've attempted to list (background color and heart plumb-bob) --Tewy 01:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Your light gray would be "#FCFCFC", but web colors can also be given as "rgb(252,252,252)". (I see the bob as a useless, confusing distraction.) --KSmrq^T 11:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm just going to endorse it as it is now, with no preference for the plumb-bob or not, and just some light gray or white background that lets the main colors stand out. --Tewy 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I now notice endorses on the version I last changed (for the background color), so I would like to emphasize that my "#fcfcfc" gray is not the exact color I want, but just an example of a light gray. I'm not sure whether subsequent voters wanted that exact shade, or if they wanted a general light gray, but what I'm saying now is that I endorse a light gray. --Tewy 20:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  No need to be highly specific; I visit this page almost daily and I see where this is heading. Sorry, you may not get exactly what you want; I'm counting noses, not hands. I'm taking endorsements into account as endorsements of the specs at the time of endorsement. Mostly, though, I just wish everyone would fight it out here on talk before I crank another version. As I wrote above, I think any white or gray background is a poor choice. I gather that the former background color (buff) was too dark for the general taste and I'll probably go for a lighter, more neutral shade. John Reid 00:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorsing. Thanks. Alarob
I heartily endorse, as a user only - I have no idea about the technical details of animated GIFs and such. I feel your frustration in trying to build a consensus. Great work, and good luck. Spalding 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's just annoying that when the image hits FPC, everyone has highly specific comments and editors aren't afraid to engage in spirited dialog -- but of course until a new version comes out, everyone wants to wait-and-see. I'd just like editors to understand that this is the last time anybody gets to comment on this beyond thumbs up or thumbs down. Once I crank another version, I'm done. John Reid 00:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)