footnotes vs. new hline and vline functionality

[npaszty]

checking with stakeholder on this during the week of October 4th.

currently LOQs values are identified in the footnote(s) with either NA or a value if there is at least 1 LOQ value recorded in LBSTRESC value.
new hline and vline functionality provides flexibility to add range, LOQ and arbitrary related hline(s) and vline(s). this is accompanied by dynamic legend display along with legend item label customization.

proposal is the remove the footnoting in favor of the new functionality and to automatically add "(xx.xx)" to the legend item label should hline(s) and/or vline(s) be added by users. so...

if ANRHI is selected to be added then label is pulled from variable label and the ANRHI value for the particular assay is appended to the label. let's say ANRHI for ALT was "70" the legend entry label would then be...
Analysis Normal Range Upper Limit (70)

If a ULOQ value is identified in the data for the particular assay then the ULOQ value, say "> 2.1", would be appended to the legend entry label which would then be...
Upper Limit of Quantitation (> 2.1)

[pawelru]

Hi @npaszty wanted to clarify the requirements
So basically you want to remove the footnote and move the values to the legend as follows:

Now we enter what ifs:
1 - what if there is no range limit selected?

Where to add the values then? If we remove the footnote then some data would be gone.

2 - I can see that only LLOQ and ULOQ are being outlined in the footnote. What if I select ANRHI & ANRLO?

Should I add LLOQ/ULOQ to the ANRHI/ANRLO? That seems to be incorrect... Where should I add it then?

Here goes my personal opinion about that ticket. I do believe that no values should be putted into the plot legend. Its role is to translate colour/shapes/etc. into some data labels. It helps to read the plot. All the values should go into the main plot area or (if that's not possible) to the footnote - that's the current state.
If we want to get rid off the footnote then I would suggest to label the lines with the values:

But here I don't know what to do if no lines would be selected. Currently we always have a footnote regardless of the selection.

To me the current state is not necessarily incorrect. Maybe we need to revisit that requirement with the stakeholder and express our view on that.
(FYI: @kumamiao)

[npaszty]

@pawelru
of course. what was I thinking. ;-/. let me think about this and touch base with stakeholder. agree that the value annotation should not be in the legend but instead on the line itself. thanks!

[npaszty]

@pawelru @kumamiao

Remembering now that if the value of ULOQ for example is NA then it shows in the footnote. So wouldn't want that to show in the legend label and to not have an accompanying line. would like to keep the footnote in place.

if value is annotated within the plot border then likely it would overlay the data at some point so best not to do that. if annotated outside the plot border then when faceting it's going to get in the way. it's likely going to get in the way at some point no matter what.

so long and short is that for now we will just go with the footnote as the value indicator for LOQs.

for arbitrary lines quite frankly the user can/will label the legend entry however they like. so this is not something we would control anyway.

thoughts?

[pawelru]

Agree with all you have said. Current footnote is not a bad thing. So it looks like the only thing that is needed is NA management in there right?

[npaszty]

@pawelru

sorry didn't see your comment from 13 days ago. ;-(.
I think we just leave the footnote as is. So not sure what you mean by NA management in there. It's fine to have the NA in the footnote.

[pawelru]

So not sure what you mean by NA management in there. It's fine to have the NA in the footnote.

I am referring to that statement:

Remembering now that if the value of ULOQ for example is NA then it shows in the footnote. So wouldn't want that to show in the legend label and to not have an accompanying line. would like to keep the footnote in place.

An example:

So what's the decision here? Do we want to keep it as it is or to modify it?

[npaszty]

@pawelru
we're just going to keep this as is and focus on the discussion in insightsengineering/teal.goshawk#85

[pawelru]

ok so I am closing this issue then