[ISSUE 7] Significant figures in legend values

[anthonyfok]

@tieganh wrote on Thu 2022-10-13 evening:

Not sure if this will already be solved once @phil-evans changes the legend scale to max values, but this current legend is not very useful given our rounding constraints (“1-1 people”).

@plesueur can you circle back on this once we have the new values from Will/Drew’s rerun today, and the legend values are updated? If it’s still not super useful, maybe we need to go to a 2 sig figs rule instead of the ‘0’ for anything less than 1. Also, our rounding scheme isn’t described anywhere on this website and isn’t intuitive. Is it too late to add it maybe to the ‘uncertainties and intended use’ page? I’m just nervous that we are reporting confidently that the average annual fatalities are ‘0’ where the answer might be 0.2345 or any other non-zero amount. Does it give a sense that there’s no risk?

[anthonyfok]

@phil-evans replied on Fri 2022-10-14 morning:

once i have the max values for each indicator, i’ll go through and make sure the legends are set up properly and then revisit

[anthonyfok]

@JulieVdV replied on Fri 2022-10-14 morning:

The rounding is described in the FAQ. And is the first point in the uncertainties section

[anthonyfok]

@plesueur replied on Fri 2022-10-14 morning:

@phil-evans has treated this. The rules for displaying scenario information and probabilistic information are different. For probabilistic, we use either a one sig fig or two sig fig rule. See example below of resolution.

[anthonyfok]

@phil-evans replied on Fri 2022-10-14 morning:

ok i’ve gone through and added appropriate max values for the legends based on a list provided by @drotheram - i’m told the current data layers are out of date though, so some of the visualizations may look a bit strange now because they’re rendering the old data based on the new max values

[anthonyfok]

@drotheram replied on Fri 2022-10-14 morning:

Thanks @phil-evans and thanks @wkhchow for calculating all of those glob al max’s