Hi,
first I like thank you for developing this efficient tool. As a biologist, I highly appreciate this.
Recently, I was using Falco (V1.2.4) to do QC for a set of reads. I noticed a few strange plot (compared to what I am used to produced by FastQC). After I investigated in more carefully, I noticed that the data is the same, however, the different visualization could lead to confusion for some people. This is the case in the following 3 sections of the HTML report file:
1. Per tile sequence quality
Falco:
FastQC:
2. Per base N content
Falco:
FastQC:
3. Adapter Content
Falco:
FastQC:
Suggestion
I understand that these are choices and nothing is wrong with the way Falco visualize the results. However, specially for adapter content and per base N content, I think it is nice to have a fix Y-axis height. Otherwise, the first look could be shocking. For the Per tile sequence quality, I think it is just a design choice to normalize data between two numbers or not.
Hi,
first I like thank you for developing this efficient tool. As a biologist, I highly appreciate this.
Recently, I was using Falco (V1.2.4) to do QC for a set of reads. I noticed a few strange plot (compared to what I am used to produced by FastQC). After I investigated in more carefully, I noticed that the data is the same, however, the different visualization could lead to confusion for some people. This is the case in the following 3 sections of the HTML report file:
1. Per tile sequence quality
Falco:
FastQC:
2. Per base N content
Falco:
FastQC:
3. Adapter Content
Falco:
FastQC:
Suggestion
I understand that these are choices and nothing is wrong with the way Falco visualize the results. However, specially for adapter content and per base N content, I think it is nice to have a fix Y-axis height. Otherwise, the first look could be shocking. For the Per tile sequence quality, I think it is just a design choice to normalize data between two numbers or not.