[Rd] Mosaicplot coloring (PR#8537)

[Greg Kochanski]

Achim Zeileis wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Greg Kochanski wrote:
> 
> 
>>The bug is that the software produces results that could
>>lead to the wrong conclusion in a research paper,
>>or could lead the readers of the research paper to
>>an erroneous belief.  That sounds like a
>>relevant definition of a bug to me.
> 
> 
> Maybe. However, it seems to be a bug in the way you interpret mosaic
> displays, not in the way they are implemented/documented in R.

OK.  Call it that if you want, though I expect that I share
the bug with many other people.


> 
> As I said before: This is a known issue with mosaic displays which is not
> so hard to find out if you consult the references given in ?mosaiplot.

The problem I see is that you (as a representative for the r-project)
are the wrong person to judge the success or failure of the
documentation.    You presumably know the software in detail.
Documentation is (to at least some degree) intended for use by
people who _do_not_ know the software well.

Expecting a package's developer to judge documentation is
like asking a bald man to judge which comb is best.   He knows
what a comb is for, he may remember using one, but it's not
quite the same as actually needing and using one.



> 
> Another solution to your problem might be to use association plots
> (assoplot() is referred to in ?mosaicplot, assoc() is again a more
> flexible implementation in "vcd").

Thanks; that may help me; I appreciate the suggestion.
(I must point out, though, it doesn't help improve
mosaicplot().)


> 
> 
>>>For an enhanced implementation of mosaic plots...
>>You shouldn't be telling this to me,
>>you should be putting it in the documentation where
> 
> 
> Note that I'm neither the author of the mosaicplot() function nor
> its manual page.

Just out of curiosity,
why are you responding to bug reports that you don't
have the power to fix?


>>Putting a "see also" note in help(mosaicplot) that points
>>to the "vcd" package, ...
>>might be a solution to the problem.
> 
> vcd is `only' a contributed package on CRAN, hence not referred to from
> base packages.

But, if the contributed packages are better (as you seem to say)
than the base packages, perhaps they *should* be mentioned?