|
Good catch. I work with a guy who is color blind, so this comes up every so often.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
And I'd also add that 65% of us don't read instructions. Excellent point, and I'll ensure there's colour and clear instructions.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: And I'd also add that 65% of us don't read instructions.
Only 65%?  
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Just a thought about a layout using standard HTML controls.
A div that contains the gradient - your algorithm to create the shading based upon input pars for the "break points" in color.
A slider control immediately under it with the numeric range so you can do your slide thing.
Nice part is that the controls already exist and the more complex one, the slider, is ready made and standard. CSS can have dynamic values, the --prefixed ones, which you can modify via your algorithm or just generate the gradient values directly for the a bars.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I'm looking for a way to graphically represent an optimum range of values, along with the actual value of a variable. One idea I've seen is a simple bar with a gradient from red to orange, green, back to orange and then to red, with the optimal range being the green zone, and a simple triangle marker pointing to the value of the variable along the range.
Is that for life, or mana?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I would say 9. What say you?
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
"billion" has no zeros. Zero zeros.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know, let me look at my bank account.
Nothing succeeds like a budgie without teeth.
|
|
|
|
|
It depends. The British billion is a million millions, so there are 12 zeroes. The American billion is a thousand millions, so there are 9 zeroes.
These days, the American billion is more commonly used than the British billion.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually British use - officially - the short system like 50 years now... The long system mostly remained in continental Europe...
And I asked you 
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the British Government has used 1 billion == 1,000,000,000 since 1974.
It's been at least that long since I last read (or believed) any statistics released by the British Government.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Our government has also reported figures in terms of "billions", and then been unable to clarify which definition they were using.  
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
That's because our government is really intelligent.
Though I am unable to confirm which definition of intelligent I am using.
|
|
|
|
|
The British 10^9 billion is used for financial values (esp. by the Government); the British 10^12 billion is still more common outside of finance. The advice is never use the word Billion, use 10^9 / 10^12; or, when talking to 'ordinary' people use thousand million / million million. Same for Trillions etc. The generic 'gazillion' can be used without clarification as it just means an extraordinarily large amount.
|
|
|
|
|
No kilomillion?
The simple answer has been hanging around right under their noses this whole time.
|
|
|
|
|
Using SI units: Giga for 1,000,000,000 (9 zeros) and Tera for 1,000,000,000,000 (12 zeros)
|
|
|
|
|
1 zero. 1 billion == 1 gigabyte == 1,073,741,824 bytes
At least, that's how I count nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
IOW, a "billion" has 11110 zeroes
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
An infinite number, if you count leading zeros.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many would you like?
Short count == 1,000,000,000 == 9
Long count == 1,000,000,000,000 == 12
Very long count == 1,0000,0000,0000,0000 == 16
|
|
|
|
|
2 (possibly 3 if you count the leading one): 0x3B9ACA00
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
None, Sir, that's an 'o'.
|
|
|
|
|
Long count is more logical.
Add six zeroes for every step in size
Million - 1 000 000
Billion - 1 000 000 000 000
Trillion - 1 000 000 000 000 000 000
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Add six zeroes for every step in size
Argument against: other scales change prefix every three zeros (kilo, mega, giga, etc.)
Another argument for: "bi" - twice as many, hence 12, "tri" three times as many, hence 18
You can choose one side but it's hard to argue that's more "logical".
Mircea
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
