[Rd] Mosaicplot coloring (PR#8537)

[Liaw, Andy]

From: 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.

Sorry for butting in...  I'm no expert in mosaic displays, and don't even
use them very often, but I think the problem you're referring as a bug in R
is more like a problem with the _method_ itself, (which will impact most, if
not all, implementation of mosaic displays, not just R's).  That's the
reason Achim points to the reference cited by the help page.  If that's the
case, I doubt it's fair to expect software documentation to point out all
possible (or known) problems with the methods it implements.  Instead, I'd
rather think that it's the user's responsibility to know what s/he is
getting into.

> > 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.

R (and S) has the uncommon (if not unique) `feature' of turning users into
developers, so there's not a sharp distinction between users and developers.
Some of the package authors (including yours truly) really see themselves
more as users than developers, or at least that's how we started in this
wonderful environment.

Perhaps you do not understand why the documentations in base R do/can not
refer to contributed packages (as Achim stated).  There are several, but the
more obvious one is that contributed packages are not guanranteed to be
there:  Each package is required to have a maintainer, who is responsible
for making necessary updates to keep the package up-to-date with R versions.
A package not actively maintained is subject to removal from CRAN.  Can you
reasonably expect base R to cite contributed packages in such a setup?

Cheers,
Andy
 
> > 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?
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> 
>