This is true. But, unfortunately, it is the current standard for many applications.
For example: although a luminance-varying colormap is theoretically better, if my doctor has been analyzing MRI scans using the jet palette for 30 years, I want him to use that color palette when he analyzes mine, instead of using a new one.
I have similar problems in my work, when representing crystallographic textures. The standard way of representing them has multiple problems (not only color choices, but also the use of Euler angles to represent orientations is a huge headache). However, if I publish a paper using a different (objectively better) method, nobody will understand my figures. I have tried including both, but I think almost everybody just ignores the new ones.
We have been fighting that fight for a while in viz. Spreading the word already in 2012 in "Rainbow colormaps - What are they good for? Absolutely nothing!" [0]
That article/post reached some audience and was referenced quite well at the time. Keep spreading the word I guess.
This is true. But, unfortunately, it is the current standard for many applications.
For example: although a luminance-varying colormap is theoretically better, if my doctor has been analyzing MRI scans using the jet palette for 30 years, I want him to use that color palette when he analyzes mine, instead of using a new one.
I have similar problems in my work, when representing crystallographic textures. The standard way of representing them has multiple problems (not only color choices, but also the use of Euler angles to represent orientations is a huge headache). However, if I publish a paper using a different (objectively better) method, nobody will understand my figures. I have tried including both, but I think almost everybody just ignores the new ones.