Clarity

The layering of graph areas is based on a set order that follows the legend order - Blue in back, grey in the middle, green up front.  This is Ok, as long as the quantities/areas are as shown in the first graph, above.  However, in the second graph, the Closed area is greater than the Resolved area, and so it overlaps completely, practically hiding the Resolved area.

How it appears to work:  Area layers are displayed in a fixed order.

How it should work:  Area layers should be displayed based on area measure - largest area in back, smallest area in front.  Colors should not change - i.e. using example, always want Open to be blue, Resolved to be grey, Closed to be green, regardless of their position in the layer stack.

Anyone know of a workaround?  If not, will submit as an idea.

Ugh thats a bit silly isn't it.

Is there an "order" on the area-graph options that can influence this? (I don't have one to hand to play with)

Otherwise workarounds (just GUESSING though) ;

code your NSQL to bring back the metrics in the right order (meaning that you have to make your metrics dynamic) - your graphs would not have a consistent color-scheme then though which might be a deal-breaker.

don't use area-graphs ; (stacked) columns instead perhaps? or line graphs?

Order can be changed, but then colors are not consistent – consistent colors is a higher requirement that we must meet.

In most cases, the area graphs are fine and our customer prefers them for these metrics – so, they might have to accept the overlay problem on the few where this occurs.

Looks like I’ll be submitting an Idea.  A couple smart coders locked in a room could solve this in a day or two, I’m sure – then delivered in one of Otto’s daily releases.  Ah, that’s still in the future….that can’t get here fast enough.