Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 92 references

Color Crafting: Automating the Construction of Designer Quality Color Ramps

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A design-mining pipeline turns a single seed color into color ramps that match expert-crafted ramps on accuracy and aesthetics.

desk verdict A genuinely new design-mining method for color ramps with a solid user study, but the headline parity-with-designers claim is not fully tested because the evaluation is partly in-sample. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00629 v1 pith:WQMZY4SR submitted 2019-08-01 cs.HC cs.GR

Stephen Smart , Keke Wu , Danielle Albers Szafir This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.GR
keywords colorrampsdesignminingCIELABunsupervisedclusteringvisualizationaestheticsperceptionsequentialanddivergingscalessingleseed
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the hard-won craft of expert color ramp design can be captured automatically from the shapes ramps trace through perceptual color space. It mines a corpus of 222 expert-built ramps, clusters their paths, and turns each cluster into a reusable curve that can be anchored to a single user-supplied seed color. In a study with 31 designers, ramps generated this way supported value-reading accuracy and aesthetic ratings at least as well as handcrafted designer ramps, and k-means-generated ramps significantly beat linear interpolation in CIELAB on both accuracy and aesthetics. If the result holds, novices could generate custom, designer-quality sequential and diverging ramps from one color, instead of choosing from fixed palettes or mastering qualitative heuristics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the model curve: an interpolating cubic B-spline fitted through a designer ramp's colors in CIELAB, resampled to nine equally spaced control points, then clustered by shape. Bayesian clustering uses the square-root velocity function, a scale-invariant elastic shape metric, augmented with a curve-length term weighted 0.5 after a tightness search. K-means clustering uses eight hand-selected features (local angles, summed angles, discriminability, length, speed, acceleration, curvature, turning points), and an exhaustive feature selection settles on nine clusters. Each cluster's mean curve becomes a reusable structural template. Seeding translates the template in $L^*$ to match the seed's luminance and in the $a^*$–$b^*$ plane to land exactly on the seed color, so all other ramp colors inherit the designer pattern's relative geometry.

What would settle it

Sample seed colors uniformly across CIELAB instead of within $\Delta E=3$ of the corpus colors, rerun the same reading task with the same 31-participant protocol, and check whether k-means ramps still beat linear ramps on error and aesthetics; if the advantage disappears, the structural models only reproduce the corpus rather than general designer practice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the relative structure of the path a color ramp traverses in CIELAB — how luminance, chroma, and hue twist along the sequence — carries most of what makes a ramp effective, more so than the specific colors used. The authors formalize this by fitting cubic B-splines to 222 handcrafted ramps, resampling each to nine control points, clustering the curves with Bayesian and k-means methods, and averaging each cluster into a representative model curve. A single seed color anchors a representative curve in color space via luminance alignment and $a^*$–$b^*$ translation, and affine edits let users tune the result. In their crowdsourced study, k-means ramps yielded lower value-estimation error than linear ramps ($\mu=0.495$ vs $0.649$, $p<.05$), and both generated ramp types received significantly higher pleasantness ratings than linear ramps, with no significant difference from designer ramps.

Load-bearing premise

The method and its evaluation rest on the assumption that the 222 collected ramps (180 sequential ones used for the main models) fairly represent high-quality designer practice and the color choices novices actually make; if that corpus is narrow or idiosyncratic, the claimed parity with designer ramps will not generalize to arbitrary seed colors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A novice can enter one brand or semantic color and receive a ramp with value-reading accuracy and pleasantness comparable to handcrafted ramps.
  • Diverging ramps can be assembled by pairing two sequential model curves with arm angles near the 115-degree average measured in the corpus.
  • Because relative structure, not absolute colors, drives the result, the same templates produce reasonable ramps even from conventionally 'ugly' seed colors.
  • The 18 discovered design patterns form a taxonomy of designer ramp structures that can seed generative tools and future theory of color encoding design.
  • Expanding or reweighting the ramp corpus could extend the approach to high-variance structures such as rainbow or cubehelix maps without manual tuning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step the paper does not take is to treat the model curves as a prior and generate on demand, letting downstream constraints such as color-vision deficiency, mark size, or task type filter or re-rank patterns before presentation.
  • The same design-mining recipe — collect expert artifacts, fit continuous curves in a perceptual space, cluster by shape, seed with one parameter — could apply to other nuanced visual channels such as shape or texture.
  • If relative structure is what matters, ramp quality might one day be scored directly from curve statistics like length, curvature, and hue twists rather than from user tests, though the paper stops short of claiming this.
  • The lightness-first seeding convention is an implicit design choice; ramps where hue rather than lightness carries the order could require different seeding rules, which the paper leaves unexplored.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes Color Crafter, a design-mining approach that constructs color ramps by clustering expert-designed ramps and generating representative curves in CIELAB, which can be anchored to a single user-selected seed color. The authors build a corpus of 222 designer ramps, normalize them as B-spline curves, cluster them with Bayesian and k-means methods, and evaluate the resulting ramps in a crowdsourced user study with design practitioners. The results show that k-means ramps significantly outperformed linear ramps on value-reading accuracy and that k-means and Bayesian ramps were rated significantly more aesthetically pleasing than linear ramps; non-significant differences favored generated ramps over designer ramps. The paper also presents replication and 'ugly color' use cases and releases the corpus and study data.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work is practically valuable: it offers a simple single-seed workflow for generating sequential and diverging ramps, it reframes ramp design as a data-driven modeling problem, and it provides an open corpus and study data that others can build on. The empirical study is a notable strength: it uses designers as participants, multiple visualization types, and both accuracy and aesthetic measures. The k-means versus linear comparison is a meaningful result. However, the headline claim of parity with designer ramps is currently supported only for seeds sampled near the training corpus, and the model-selection procedure does not use held-out data. The central contribution is therefore defensible but requires either a narrowing of the claim or additional out-of-sample evaluation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Stimuli; §3.5] The comparison to designer ramps is in-sample. The designer baseline ramps are 'randomly selected from the corpus of 180 sequential ramps used to guide our models,' and the seed colors for k-means, Bayesian, and linear ramps are drawn from 'all integer colors within ΔE=3 of each color in our corpus' (§4.1). Because the model curves in §3.4 are averages of clustered training curves, the generated ramps are anchored near the same colors that defined the models and are compared against the same ramps used for training. The significant k-means-vs-linear advantage is valid for that seed distribution, but the abstract's claim that the models produce ramps 'at least as well as designer ramps' for the general case of a user's arbitrary seed color is not tested. Please either restrict the claim to near-corpus seed colors or add a held-out evaluation with seeds outside the corpus and designer ramps excluded from the training set.
  2. [§3.3.1, §3.3.2] The choices of w=0.5, k=9, and the k-means feature subset are selected by minimizing tightness computed on the full corpus without any holdout. Because the same 180 ramps later provide both the designer baselines and the seed-color distribution in §4.1, the tightness criterion is not independent evidence that the cluster structure generalizes. Report cross-validated or held-out model-selection results, or explicitly acknowledge that the model parameters are fitted to the evaluation corpus and that the user study therefore tests a partially in-sample configuration.
  3. [§4.1, Results; §5] The claim that generated ramps are 'at least as good as' designer ramps is based on non-significant differences: k-means error (μ=0.495) and Bayesian aesthetic ratings are numerically better than designer ramps but the differences are not significant. A non-significant difference in a study designed to detect differences cannot by itself establish equivalence or non-inferiority. Please provide an equivalence or non-inferiority analysis with a pre-specified margin, or soften the wording to 'no significant difference was found' wherever the 'at least as well' claim appears, including the abstract and Section 5.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2] The replication case study uses manual affine transformations and selection of the model 'most similar' to the original ramp, and the match is assessed visually. Report a quantitative color-difference metric (e.g., mean ΔE between the reconstructed and original ramps) so readers can judge how close the matches are, and clarify that this use case demonstrates editability rather than unedited automatic reproduction.
  2. [§5, Discussion] The random-seed pilot is cited as supporting evidence with means and standard errors but no procedural details. Either provide the full methodology in the supplement or present the pilot as anecdotal rather than as a formal result.
  3. [§5.1, Limitations] The text says 'Generalized Adversarial Networks (GANs)'; the standard term is 'Generative Adversarial Networks.'
  4. [§2.2, Related Work] The tool name 'PRAVDAColor' is rendered with an erroneous space as 'PRA VDAColor' in the text; fix the rendering.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

In-sample evaluation: designer baselines and seed colors both derive from the 180-ramp training corpus, so the parity claim partly reduces to a cluster-average reconstruction of the training ramps.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4 (Model Construction) and Section 4.1 (Empirical Study, Stimuli)]
    "We then construct a representative curve for each cluster that we can then use to generate ramps reflecting each pattern. ... We compute the mean curve as the mean relative position of each control point: c′(x)= ∑n i=1 ci(x) n ... Our designer ramps were randomly selected from the corpus of 180 sequential ramps used to guide our models. ... Seeding colors in the k-means, Bayesian, and linear conditions were drawn from a set of 15,581 colors. This color set contains all integer colors within ∆E= 3 of each color in our corpus of 180 designer ramps to avoid confounds from hue preferences."

    The representative model is defined, in Eq. c′(x)=..., as the mean of the aligned training curves; generated ramps are these mean curves anchored to a seed. The designer baseline is randomly drawn from the same 180 sequential ramps that produced the clusters, and the seeds are sampled within ∆E=3 of those same ramps' colors. The abstract's claim that generated ramps work 'at least as well as designer ramps' therefore compares cluster-averaged reconstructions against the very training examples used to build them, so that leg of the claim reduces to a reconstruction check on the training corpus rather than a test of generalization to held-out designers or arbitrary seed colors.

full rationale

No self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is load-bearing; the Bayesian clustering algorithm is cited to prior external work (Zhang et al. [91]) and the evaluation is an independent human-subject experiment. The central issue is that the designer-quality benchmark is in-sample: the model curves are averages of the training corpus, the designer baseline ramps are sampled from that same corpus, and the generator seeds are restricted to a small chromatic neighborhood of corpus colors. Consequently, the parity result demonstrates that a cluster mean can approximate its own training members, not that the method generalizes to arbitrary novice seed colors or to designer practice outside the collection. The paper itself flags this dependence in Section 5.1 ('The performance of our approach is determined by the quality of the designer-crafted color ramps that we collect'; 'Future work should explore how sensitive our approach is to the training ramp distribution'). The linear-interpolation comparison and the raw accuracy/aesthetic measurements retain independent evidential value, which is why the overall circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is data-driven: every structural parameter of the models is fit to the 222-ramp corpus, and the evaluation is anchored to the same corpus. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • w (SRVF length-weight) = 0.5
    Weight in the clustering distance balancing SRVF shape metric and curve length; selected by maximizing cluster tightness on the training corpus (§3.3.1).
  • k (number of k-means clusters) = 9
    Number of clusters chosen by exhaustive search over k in [2,15] using the tightness metric on the training corpus (§3.3.2).
  • k-means feature subset = sum of angles, length, curvature, turning points
    Four of eight candidate curve features selected by exhaustive feature selection (255 combinations) to minimize tightness (§3.3.2).
  • normalized ramp length = 9 colors
    Number of resampled control points per curve, chosen as a reliable upper bound for perceptually distinct sequential colors (§3.2).
  • diverging arm angle = 115 degrees
    Default rotation angle between sequential arms of diverging ramps, set to the mean angle in the 42-ramp diverging corpus (§3.6).
  • diverging hue rotation bounds = ±60 degrees
    Constraint on hue rotation of diverging arms, derived from the range observed in the diverging corpus (§3.6).
  • seed color translation rule = translate to nearest control point in L*, then match a*-b*
    Heuristic for anchoring the representative curve to a user seed color; not derived from data (§3.5).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 222-ramp corpus (180 sequential) is representative of high-quality designer color ramp practice.
    The whole method and evaluation rest on this corpus. If it is unrepresentative, the models and the designer baseline are both biased (§3.1).
  • domain assumption CIELAB is an adequate perceptual space for measuring color differences and curve structure.
    All spline fitting, clustering, distance, and seeding computations use CIELAB Euclidean distances; CIELAB is known to be only approximately perceptually uniform (§3.2, §4).
  • domain assumption The tightness metric (mean pairwise Euclidean distance between aligned control points) measures cluster quality relevant to ramp quality.
    Tightness is used to select w, k, and features without external validation that tighter clusters produce better ramps (§3.3.1).
  • domain assumption Interpolating cubic B-splines resampled by arc length preserve the structure of designer ramps.
    The continuous curve representation is the basis for clustering and model construction (§3.2).
  • domain assumption Mean curves of aligned clusters are valid representative models of designer practice.
    Averaging can compress extreme curvature or length variations; the authors acknowledge this and provide manual editing as a workaround (§3.4, §4.2).
  • domain assumption Point estimation accuracy and pleasantness ratings in the crowdsourced study measure ramp quality.
    The empirical evaluation uses a single task (click the mark matching a target value) and a single aesthetic slider; real-world tasks may differ (§4.1, §5.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Color Crafting: Automating the Construction of Designer Quality Color Ramps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQMZY4SR

@misc{pith2026190800629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Color Crafting: Automating the Construction of Designer Quality Color Ramps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQMZY4SR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00629}
}
read the original abstract

Visualizations often encode numeric data using sequential and diverging color ramps. Effective ramps use colors that are sufficiently discriminable, align well with the data, and are aesthetically pleasing. Designers rely on years of experience to create high-quality color ramps. However, it is challenging for novice visualization developers that lack this experience to craft effective ramps as most guidelines for constructing ramps are loosely defined qualitative heuristics that are often difficult to apply. Our goal is to enable visualization developers to readily create effective color encodings using a single seed color. We do this using an algorithmic approach that models designer practices by analyzing patterns in the structure of designer-crafted color ramps. We construct these models from a corpus of 222 expert-designed color ramps, and use the results to automatically generate ramps that mimic designer practices. We evaluate our approach through an empirical study comparing the outputs of our approach with designer-crafted color ramps. Our models produce ramps that support accurate and aesthetically pleasing visualizations at least as well as designer ramps and that outperform conventional mathematical approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00629 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our approach uses design mining and unsupervised clustering techniques to produce automatically generated color ramps that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A sample of six single and multihue handcrafted ramps from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An overview of our algorithm for generating effective color ramps. (1) We collected a corpus of designer-crafted color ramps. (2) We then fit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Our algorithm clusters expert-crafted color ramps based on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We construct diverging color ramps by appending two sequential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We embody our approach in Color Crafter, a web-based tool for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of the study interface used in our empirical evaluation showing each visualization type: scatterplot (left), heatmap (middle), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mean aesthetic rating for each color ramp type. Error bars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Color ramps generated using “ugly colors” from the ColourLovers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://github.com/gka/chroma.js/

    chroma.js. https://github.com/gka/chroma.js/

  2. [2]

    http://tristen.ca/hcl-picker

    Color picker for data. http://tristen.ca/hcl-picker

  3. [3]

    http://tools.medialab.sciences-po.fr/iwanthue

    iwanthue. http://tools.medialab.sciences-po.fr/iwanthue

  4. [4]

    https://www.susielu.com/data-viz/viz-palette

    Vizpalettes. https://www.susielu.com/data-viz/viz-palette

  5. [5]

    G. Aisch. Chroma.js color scale helper

  6. [6]

    Bartram, A

    L. Bartram, A. Patra, and M. Stone. Affective color in visualization. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1364–1374. ACM, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Behrisch, M

    M. Behrisch, M. Blumenschein, N. W. Kim, L. Shao, M. El-Assady, J. Fuchs, D. Seebacher, A. Diehl, U. Brandes, H. Pfister, et al. Quality metrics for information visualization. In Computer Graphics Forum , vol. 37, pp. 625–662. Wiley Online Library, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    L. D. Bergman, B. E. Rogowitz, and L. A. Treinish. A rule-based tool for assisting colormap selection. In Proceedings of Visualization ’95, pp. 118–125. IEEE, 1995

    1995

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    J. Birch. Worldwide prevalence of red-green color deficiency. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, 29(3):313–320, Mar 2012. doi: 10.1364/JOSAA.29.000313

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    C. A. Brewer. Color use guidelines for data representation. In Proceedings of the Section on Statistical Graphics, American Statistical Association, pp. 55–60. American Statistical Association Alexandria, V A, 1999

    1999

  3. [11]

    T. Brown. Colorpicker for data

  4. [12]

    Bujack, T

    R. Bujack, T. L. Turton, F. Samsel, C. Ware, D. H. Rogers, and J. Ahrens. The good, the bad, and the ugly: A theoretical framework for the assess- ment of continuous colormaps. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 24(1):923–933, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Cie publication no

    CIE. Cie publication no. 15.2. Commission Internationale de leclairage, Vienna, pp. 19–20, 1986

    1986

  6. [14]

    J. Clark. The ishihara test for color blindness. American Journal of Physiological Optics, 1924

    1924

  7. [15]

    W. S. Cleveland and R. McGill. Graphical perception: Theory, experimen- tation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387):531–554, 1984

    1984

  8. [16]

    Correll, D

    M. Correll, D. Moritz, and J. Heer. Value-suppressing uncertainty palettes. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems, p. 642. ACM, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Dasgupta, J

    A. Dasgupta, J. Poco, B. Rogowitz, K. Han, E. Bertini, and C. T. Silva. The effect of color scales on climate scientists’ objective and subjective perfor- mance in spatial data analysis tasks. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Demiralp, M

    C ¸. Demiralp, M. S. Bernstein, and J. Heer. Learning perceptual kernels for visualization design. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 20(12):1933–1942, 2014

    1933

  11. [19]

    Dragicevic

    P. Dragicevic. Fair statistical communication in hci. In Modern Statistical Methods for HCI, pp. 291–330. Springer, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    El-Said, G

    M. El-Said, G. Fischer, S. Gamalel-Din, and M. Zaki. Addi: A tool for automating the design of visual interfaces. Computers & Graphics, 21(1):79–87, 1997

    1997

  13. [21]

    M. D. Fairchild. Color Appearance Models. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Filonik and D

    D. Filonik and D. Baur. Measuring aesthetics for information visualization. In 2009 13th International Conference Information Visualisation, pp. 579–

    2009

  15. [23]

    J. D. Foley, F. D. Van, A. Van Dam, S. K. Feiner, J. F. Hughes, J. HUGHES, and E. ANGEL. Computer graphics: principles and practice, vol. 12110. Addison-Wesley Professional, 1996

    1996

  16. [24]

    Ford and A

    A. Ford and A. Roberts. Colour space conversions.Westminster University, London, 1998:1–31, 1998

    1998

  17. [25]

    I. J. Goodfellow, J. Shlens, and C. Szegedy. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    C. C. Gramazio, D. H. Laidlaw, and K. B. Schloss. Colorgorical: Creating discriminable and preferable color palettes for information visualization. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 23(1):521–530, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Harrower and C

    M. Harrower and C. A. Brewer. Colorbrewer. org: an online tool for selecting colour schemes for maps. The Cartographic Journal, 40(1):27– 37, 2003

    2003

  20. [28]

    Heer and M

    J. Heer and M. Stone. Color naming models for color selection, image editing and palette design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1007–1016. ACM, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    A. C. Hurlbert and Y . Ling. Biological components of sex differences in color preference. Current Biology, 17(16):R623–R625, 2007

    2007

  22. [30]

    Jahanian, S

    A. Jahanian, S. Keshvari, S. Vishwanathan, and J. P. Allebach. Colors– messengers of concepts: Visual design mining for learning color semantics. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 24(1):2, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Jahanian, S

    A. Jahanian, S. Vishwanathan, and J. P. Allebach. Learning visual balance from large-scale datasets of aesthetically highly rated images. In Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XX, vol. 9394, p. 93940Y . International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    D. Koop, C. E. Scheidegger, S. P. Callahan, J. Freire, and C. T. Silva. Viscomplete: Automating suggestions for visualization pipelines. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 14(6):1691–1698, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    P. Kovesi. Good colour maps: How to design them. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.03700, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kumar, A

    R. Kumar, A. Satyanarayan, C. Torres, M. Lim, S. Ahmad, S. R. Klemmer, and J. O. Talton. Webzeitgeist: design mining the web. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3083–3092. ACM, 2013

    2013

  27. [35]

    E. R. Landa and M. D. Fairchild. Charting color from the eye of the beholder: A century ago, artist albert henry munsell quantified colors based on how they appear to people; specializations of his system are still in wide scientific use. American Scientist, 93(5):436–443, 2005

    2005

  28. [36]

    A. Lang. Aesthetics in information visualization. Trends in Information Visualization, 8, 2009

    2009

  29. [37]

    Lau and A

    A. Lau and A. V . Moere. Towards a model of information aesthetics in information visualization. In 2007 11th International Conference Infor- mation Visualization (IV’07), pp. 87–92. IEEE, 2007

    2007

  30. [38]

    S. Lee, M. Sips, and H.-P. Seidel. Perceptually driven visibility optimiza- tion for categorical data visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(10):1746–1757, 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    Levkowitz

    H. Levkowitz. Perceptual steps along color scales. International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology, 7(2):97–101, 1996

    1996

  32. [40]

    Levkowitz and G

    H. Levkowitz and G. T. Herman. Color scales for image data. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, (1):72–80, 1992

    1992

  33. [41]

    S. Lin, J. Fortuna, C. Kulkarni, M. Stone, and J. Heer. Selecting semantically-resonants for data visualization. In Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 32, pp. 401–410. Wiley Online Library, 2013

    2013

  34. [42]

    S. Lin, D. Ritchie, M. Fisher, and P. Hanrahan. Probabilistic color-by- numbers: Suggesting pattern colorizations using factor graphs. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 32(4):37, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    Ling and A

    Y . Ling and A. C. Hurlbert. A new model for color preference: Universality and individuality. In Color and Imaging Conference, vol. 2007, pp. 8–11. Society for Imaging Science and Technology, 2007

    2007

  36. [44]

    Liu and J

    Y . Liu and J. Heer. Somewhere over the rainbow: An empirical assessment of quantitative colormaps. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 598. ACM, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    A. M. MacEachren, R. E. Roth, J. O’Brien, B. Li, D. Swingley, and M. Gahegan. Visual semiotics & uncertainty visualization: An empiri- cal study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12):2496–2505, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    Mackinlay

    J. Mackinlay. Automating the design of graphical presentations of rela- tional information. Acm Transactions On Graphics (Tog), 5(2):110–141, 1986

    1986

  39. [47]

    McDonald and K

    R. McDonald and K. J. Smith. Cie94-a new colour-difference formula. Journal of the Society of Dyers and Colourists, 111(12):376–379, 1995

    1995

  40. [48]

    B. J. Meier, A. M. Spalter, and D. B. Karelitz. Interactive color palette tools. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 24(3):64–72, 2004

    2004

  41. [49]

    G. W. Meyer and D. P. Greenberg. Perceptual color spaces for computer graphics. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 14(3):254–261, 1980

    1980

  42. [50]

    Mittelst¨adt, J

    S. Mittelst¨adt, J. Bernard, T. Schreck, M. Steiger, J. Kohlhammer, and D. A. Keim. Revisiting perceptually optimized color mapping for high- dimensional data analysis. In EuroVis 2014: the Eurographics Conference on Visualization, pp. 91–95, 2014

    2014

  43. [51]

    Mittelst¨adt, D

    S. Mittelst¨adt, D. J¨ackle, F. Stoffel, and D. A. Keim. Colorcat: Guided design of colormaps for combined analysis tasks. In Eurographics Confer- ence on Visualization (EuroVis)-Short Papers. The Eurographics Associa- tion, 2015

    2015

  44. [52]

    Mittelst¨adt and D

    S. Mittelst¨adt and D. A. Keim. Efficient contrast effect compensation with personalized perception models. In Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 34, pp. 211–220. Wiley Online Library, 2015

    2015

  45. [53]

    Moreland

    K. Moreland. Diverging color maps for scientific visualization. In Inter- national Symposium on Visual Computing, pp. 92–103. Springer, 2009

    2009

  46. [54]

    Moritz, C

    D. Moritz, C. Wang, G. L. Nelson, H. Lin, A. M. Smith, B. Howe, and J. Heer. Formalizing visualization design knowledge as constraints: Ac- tionable and extensible models in draco. IEEE transactions on visualiza- tion and computer graphics, 25(1):438–448, 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Moroney, M

    N. Moroney, M. D. Fairchild, R. W. Hunt, C. Li, M. R. Luo, and T. New- man. The ciecam02 color appearance model. In Color and Imaging Conference, vol. 2002, pp. 23–27. Society for Imaging Science and Tech- nology, 2002

    2002

  48. [56]

    Moshagen and M

    M. Moshagen and M. T. Thielsch. Facets of visual aesthetics.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(10):689–709, 2010

    2010

  49. [57]

    Padilla, P

    L. Padilla, P. S. Quinan, M. Meyer, and S. H. Creem-Regehr. Evaluating the impact of binning 2d scalar fields. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 23(1):431–440, 2017

    2017

  50. [58]

    S. E. Palmer and K. B. Schloss. Ecological valence and human color preference. New Directions in Colour Studies, pp. 361–76, 2011

    2011

  51. [59]

    S. E. Palmer, K. B. Schloss, and J. Sammartino. Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64:77–107, 2013

    2013

  52. [60]

    J. Pitman. Combinatorial Stochastic Processes: Ecole d’Et´e de Proba- bilit´es de Saint-Flour XXXII-2002. Springer, 2006

    2002

  53. [61]

    S. M. Pizer. Intensity mappings to linearize display devices. Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 17(3):262–268, 1981

    1981

  54. [62]

    J. Poco, A. Mayhua, and J. Heer. Extracting and retargeting color mappings from bitmap images of visualizations. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 24(1):637–646, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    Samsel, L

    F. Samsel, L. Bartram, Annie, and Bares. Art, affect and color: Creating engaging expressive scientific visualization. In VISAP: Proceedings of the IEEE VIS Arts Program, 2018

    2018

  56. [64]

    Samsel, S

    F. Samsel, S. Klaassen, and D. H. Rogers. Colormoves: Real-time inter- active colormap construction for scientific visualization. IEEE computer graphics and applications, 38(1):20–29, 2018

    2018

  57. [65]

    Samsel, M

    F. Samsel, M. Petersen, T. Geld, G. Abram, J. Wendelberger, and J. Ahrens. Colormaps that improve perception of high-resolution ocean data. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 703–710. ACM, 2015

  58. [66]

    K. B. Schloss, C. C. Gramazio, A. T. Silverman, M. L. Parker, and A. S. Wang. Mapping color to meaning in colormap data visualizations. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics , 25(1):810–819, 2019

    2019

  59. [67]

    K. B. Schloss and S. E. Palmer. Aesthetic response to color combi- nations: preference, harmony, and similarity. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(2):551–571, 2011

    2011

  60. [68]

    Sereda, A

    P. Sereda, A. Vilanova, and F. A. Gerritsen. Automating transfer function design for volume rendering using hierarchical clustering of material boundaries. In Computer Graphics Forum, pp. 243–250, 2006

    2006

  61. [69]

    Silva, B

    S. Silva, B. S. Santos, and J. Madeira. Using color in visualization: A survey. Computers & Graphics, 35(2):320–333, 2011

    2011

  62. [70]

    K. R. Sloan Jr and C. M. Brown. Color map techniques. Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 10(4):297–317, 1979

    1979

  63. [71]

    Smart and D

    S. Smart and D. A. Szafir. Measuring the separability of shape, size, and color in scatterplots. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2019

    2019

  64. [72]

    Srivastava, E

    A. Srivastava, E. Klassen, S. H. Joshi, and I. H. Jermyn. Shape analysis of elastic curves in euclidean spaces. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 33(7):1415–1428, 2011

    2011

  65. [73]

    Stone, D

    M. Stone, D. A. Szafir, and V . Setlur. An engineering model for color difference as a function of size. In Color and Imaging Conference, vol. 2014, pp. 253–258. Society for Imaging Science and Technology, 2014

    2014

  66. [74]

    D. A. Szafir. Modeling color difference for visualization design. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics , 24(1):392–401, 2018

    2018

  67. [75]

    J. Tajima. Uniform color scale applications to computer graphics. Com- puter Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 21(3):305–325, 1983

    1983

  68. [76]

    Tennekes and E

    M. Tennekes and E. de Jonge. Tree colors: color schemes for tree- structured data. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 20(12):2072–2081, 2014

    2014

  69. [77]

    Tominski, G

    C. Tominski, G. Fuchs, and H. Schumann. Task-driven color coding. In 2008 12th International Conference Information Visualisation, pp. 373–

    2008

  70. [78]

    B. E. Trumbo. A theory for coloring bivariate statistical maps. The American Statistician, 35(4):220–226, 1981

    1981

  71. [79]

    Wainer and C

    H. Wainer and C. M. Francolini. An empirical inquiry concerning human understanding of two-variable color maps. The American Statistician , 34(2):81–93, 1980

    1980

  72. [80]

    Y . Wang, F. Han, L. Zhu, O. Deussen, and B. Chen. Line graph or scatter plot? automatic selection of methods for visualizing trends in time series. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 24(2):1141– 1154, 2018

    2018

  73. [81]

    C. Ware. Color sequences for univariate maps: Theory, experiments and principles. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 8(5):41–49, 1988

    1988

  74. [82]

    C. Ware, T. L. Turton, F. Samsel, R. Bujack, D. H. Rogers, K. Lawonn, N. Smit, and D. Cunningham. Evaluating the perceptual uniformity of color sequences for feature discrimination. In EuroVis Workshop on Reproducibility, Verification, and Validation in Visualization (EuroRV3)....

    2017

  75. [83]

    Wijffelaars, R

    M. Wijffelaars, R. Vliegen, J. J. Van Wijk, and E.-J. Van Der Linden. Gen- erating color palettes using intuitive parameters. In Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 27, pp. 743–750. Wiley Online Library, 2008

    2008

  76. [84]

    Wongsuphasawat, D

    K. Wongsuphasawat, D. Moritz, A. Anand, J. Mackinlay, B. Howe, and J. Heer. Towards a general-purpose query language for visualization recommendation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Human-In-the-Loop Data Analytics, p. 4. ACM, 2016

    2016

  77. [85]

    Wongsuphasawat, D

    K. Wongsuphasawat, D. Moritz, A. Anand, J. Mackinlay, B. Howe, and J. Heer. V oyager: Exploratory analysis via faceted browsing of visualiza- tion recommendations. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 22(1):649–658, 2016

    2016

  78. [86]

    Wongsuphasawat, Z

    K. Wongsuphasawat, Z. Qu, D. Moritz, R. Chang, F. Ouk, A. Anand, J. Mackinlay, B. Howe, and J. Heer. V oyager 2: Augmenting visual analysis with partial view specifications. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 2648–2659. ACM, 2017

    2017

  79. [87]

    Zeileis, J

    A. Zeileis, J. C. Fisher, K. Hornik, R. Ihaka, C. D. McWhite, P. Murrell, R. Stauffer, and C. O. Wilke. colorspace: A toolbox for manipulating and assessing colors and palettes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.06490, 2019

    1903 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Zeileis, K

    A. Zeileis, K. Hornik, and P. Murrell. Escaping rgbland: Selecting col- ors for statistical graphics. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 53(9):3259–3270, 2009

    2009

  81. [89]

    Zeyen, T

    M. Zeyen, T. Post, a. A. Hans Hagen, D. Rogers, and R. Bujack. Color Interpolation for Non-Euclidean Color Spaces. In IEEE Scientific Visual- ization Conference (SciVis) Short Papers. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  82. [90]

    Zhang and E

    H. Zhang and E. Montag. Perceptual color scales for univariate and bivariate data display. The Society for Imaging Science and Technology (IS&T), 2006

    2006

  83. [91]

    Zhang, D

    Z. Zhang, D. Pati, and A. Srivastava. Bayesian clustering of shapes of curves. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 166:171–186, 2015

    2015

  84. [92]

    Zhou and C

    L. Zhou and C. D. Hansen. A survey of colormaps in visualization. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 22(8):2051–2069, 2016

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.