Is it strange that I find the old "JET" the best? It uses the most hues (green, yellow, red and blue are all there), so things are the most distinguishable. The others are either only blue/green/yellow, or only purple/red/yellow.
Yes, that's the point. People like it a lot but are worse at actually interpreting it. It's confusing when people have to read lots of confusing data quickly
Quick, which represents a larger value, green or red?
Having a gradient between two colors, from dark to light, makes it easier to determine the scale. Rainbow gradients look nice, but hue transitions are nowhere near as intuitive as luminance.
I think you're both correct, but your points respond to different needs. For some types of results (and audiences and modes of presentation) its more important that the reader be able to determine the approximate value that a color corresponds to than that the reader be able to quickly intuit the progression of values. For me, Jet is better at the former while Viridis et al are better at the latter.
Comments
Is it strange that I find the old "JET" the best? It uses the most hues (green, yellow, red and blue are all there), so things are the most distinguishable. The others are either only blue/green/yellow, or only purple/red/yellow.
Yes, that's the point. People like it a lot but are worse at actually interpreting it. It's confusing when people have to read lots of confusing data quickly
Quick, which represents a larger value, green or red?
Having a gradient between two colors, from dark to light, makes it easier to determine the scale. Rainbow gradients look nice, but hue transitions are nowhere near as intuitive as luminance.
I think you're both correct, but your points respond to different needs. For some types of results (and audiences and modes of presentation) its more important that the reader be able to determine the approximate value that a color corresponds to than that the reader be able to quickly intuit the progression of values. For me, Jet is better at the former while Viridis et al are better at the latter.