HCI Bibliography Home | HCI Conferences | BELIV Archive | Detailed Records | RefWorks | EndNote | Hide Abstracts
BELIV Tables of Contents: 0608101214

Proceedings of the 2012 Workshop on BEyond time and errors: novel evaLuation methods for Information Visualization

Fullname:BELIV'12: BEyond time and errors: novel evaLuation methods for Information Visualization
Location:Seattle, Washington
Dates:2012-Oct-14 to 2012-Oct-15
Publisher:ACM
Standard No:ISBN: 978-1-4503-1791-7; ACM DL: Table of Contents; hcibib: BELIV12
Papers:17
Links:Conference Website | Conference Series Website
  1. Evaluation at Design (InfoVis): How do we learn from users at the design stage to correct mistakes before building a full prototype?
  2. Evaluation at Design (SciVis): How do we learn from users at the design stage to correct mistakes before building a full prototype?
  3. Cognition and evaluation (new metrics / measures): How can we measure user cognition?
  4. Evaluating visualizations: How can we measure visualization?
  5. Why evaluate?: What are the goals and motivations of evaluations? How should these be conveyed in reporting evaluation?
  6. New evaluation framework: What can we learn from patterns and templates and apply to visualization evaluation?
  7. Novel methods
  8. Improving existing methods

Evaluation at Design (InfoVis): How do we learn from users at the design stage to correct mistakes before building a full prototype?

Experiences in involving analysts in visualisation design BIBAFull-Text 1
  Aidan Slingsby; Jason Dykes
Involving analysts in visualisation design has obvious benefits, but the knowledge-gap between domain experts ('analysts') and visualisation designers ('designers') often makes the degree of their involvement fall short of that aspired. By promoting a culture of mutual learning, understanding and contribution between both analysts and designers from the outset, participants can be raised to a level at which all can usefully contribute to both requirement definition and design. We describe the process we use to do this for tightly-scoped and short design exercises -- with meetings/workshops, iterative bursts of design/prototyping over relatively short periods of time, and workplace-based evaluation -- illustrating this with examples of our own experience from recent work with bird ecologists.
An integrated approach for evaluating the visualization of intensional and extensional levels of ontologies BIBAFull-Text 2
  Isabel Cristina Siqueira da Silva; Carla Maria Dal Sasso Freitas; Giuseppe Santucci
Visualization of ontologies is based on effective graphical representations and interaction techniques that support users tasks related to different entities and aspects. Ontologies can be very large and complex due to the levels of classes hierarchy as well as the attributes. In this work we present a study involving the investigation and proposition of guidelines to help the design and evaluation of visualization techniques for both the intensional and extensional levels of ontologies.

Evaluation at Design (SciVis): How do we learn from users at the design stage to correct mistakes before building a full prototype?

Which visualizations work, for what purpose, for whom?: evaluating visualizations of terrestrial and aquatic systems BIBAFull-Text 3
  Judith Bayard Cushing; Evan Hayduk; Jerilyn Walley; Kirsten Winters; Denise Lach; Michael Bailey; Christoph Thomas; Susan G. Stafford
A need for better ecology visualization tools is well documented, and development of these is underway, including our own NSF funded Visualization of Terrestrial and Aquatic Systems (VISTAS) project, now beginning its second of four years. VISTAS' goal is not only to devise visualizations that help ecologists in research and in communicating that research, but also to evaluate the visualizations and software. Thus, we ask "which visualizations work, for what purpose, and for which audiences," and our project involves equal participation of ecologists, computer scientists, and social scientists. We have begun to study visualization use by ecologists, assessed some existing software products, and implemented a prototype. This position paper reports how we apply social science methods in establishing context for VISTAS' evaluation and development. We describe our initial surveys of ecologists and ecology journals to determine current visualization use, outline our visualization evaluation strategies, and in conclusion pose questions critical to the evaluation, deployment, and adoption of VISTAS and VISTAS-like visualizations and software.
Toward mixed method evaluations of scientific visualizations and design process as an evaluation tool BIBAFull-Text 4
  Bret Jackson; Dane Coffey; Lauren Thorson; David Schroeder; Arin M. Ellingson; David J. Nuckley; Daniel F. Keefe
In this position paper we discuss successes and limitations of current evaluation strategies for scientific visualizations and argue for embracing a mixed methods strategy of evaluation. The most novel contribution of the approach that we advocate is a new emphasis on employing design processes as practiced in related fields (e.g., graphic design, illustration, architecture) as a formalized mode of evaluation for data visualizations. To motivate this position we describe a series of recent evaluations of scientific visualization interfaces and computer graphics strategies conducted within our research group. Complementing these more traditional evaluations our visualization research group also regularly employs sketching, critique, and other design methods that have been formalized over years of practice in design fields. Our experience has convinced us that these activities are invaluable, often providing much more detailed evaluative feedback about our visualization systems than that obtained via more traditional user studies and the like. We believe that if design-based evaluation methodologies (e.g., ideation, sketching, critique) can be taught and embraced within the visualization community then these may become one of the most effective future strategies for both formative and summative evaluations.

Cognition and evaluation (new metrics / measures): How can we measure user cognition?

Evaluating visualization using cognitive measures BIBAFull-Text 5
  Erik W. Anderson
In this position paper, we discuss the problems and advantages of using physiological measurements to estimate cognitive load in order to evaluate scientific visualization methods. We will present various techniques and technologies designed to measure cognitive load and how they may be leveraged in the context of user evaluation studies for scientific visualization. We also discuss the challenges of experiments designed to use these physiological measurements.
Towards a 3-dimensional model of individual cognitive differences: position paper BIBAFull-Text 6
  Evan M. Peck; Beste F. Yuksel; Lane Harrison; Alvitta Ottley; Remco Chang
The effects of individual differences on user interaction is a topic that has been explored for the last 25 years in HCI. Recently, the importance of this subject has been carried into the field of information visualization and consequently, there has been a wide range of research conducted in this area. However, there has been no consensus on which evaluation methods best answer the unique needs of information visualization. In this position paper we propose that individual differences are evaluated in three dominant dimensions: cognitive traits, cognitive states and experience/bias. We believe that this is a first step in systematically evaluating the effects of users' individual differences on information visualization and visual analytics.
Interaction junk: user interaction-based evaluation of visual analytic systems BIBAFull-Text 7
  Alex Endert; Chris North
With the growing need for visualization to aid users in understanding large, complex datasets, the ability for users to interact and explore these datasets is critical. As visual analytic systems have advanced to leverage powerful computational models and data analytics capabilities, the modes by which users engage and interact with the information are limited. Often, users are taxed with directly manipulating parameters of these models through traditional GUIs (e.g., using sliders to directly manipulate the value of a parameter). However, the purpose of user interaction in visual analytic systems is to enable visual data exploration -- where users can focus on their task, as opposed to the tool or system. As a result, users can engage freely in data exploration and decision-making, for the purpose of gaining insight. In this position paper, we discuss how evaluating visual analytic systems can be approached through user interaction analysis, where the goal is to minimize the cognitive translation between the visual metaphor and the mode of interaction (i.e., reducing the "interaction junk"). We motivate this concept through a discussion of traditional GUIs used in visual analytics for direct manipulation of model parameters, and the importance of designing interactions the support visual data exploration.

Evaluating visualizations: How can we measure visualization?

Spatial autocorrelation-based information visualization evaluation BIBAFull-Text 8
  Joseph A. Cottam; Andrew Lumsdaine
A data set can be represented in any number of ways. For example, hierarchical data can be presented as a radial node-link diagram, dendrogram, force-directed layout, or tree map. Alternatively, point-observations can be shown with scatter-plots, parallel coordinates, or bar charts. Each technique has different capabilities for representing relationships. These capabilities are further modified by projection and presentation decisions within the technique category. Evaluating the many options is an essential task in visualization development. Currently, evaluation is largely based on heuristics, prior experience, and indefinable aesthetic considerations. This paper presents initial work towards an evaluation technique based in spatial autocorrelation. We find that spatial autocorrelation can be used to construct a separator between visualizations and other image types. Furthermore, this can be done with parameters amenable to interactive use and in a fashion that does not need to take plot schema characteristics as parameters.
The importance of tracing data through the visualization pipeline BIBAFull-Text 9
  Aritra Dasgupta; Robert Kosara
Visualization research focuses either on the transformation steps necessary to create a visualization from data, or on the perception of structures after they have been shown on the screen. We argue that an end-to-end approach is necessary that tracks the data all the way through the required steps, and provides ways of measuring the impact of any of the transformations. By feeding that information back into the pipeline, visualization systems will be able to adapt the display to the data being shown, the parameters of the output device, and even the user.

Why evaluate?: What are the goals and motivations of evaluations? How should these be conveyed in reporting evaluation?

Why ask why?: considering motivation in visualization evaluation BIBAFull-Text 10
  Michael Gleicher
My position is that improving evaluation for visualization requires more than developing more sophisticated evaluation methods. It also requires improving the efficacy of evaluations, which involves issues such as how evaluations are applied, reported, and assessed. Considering the motivations for evaluation in visualization offers a way to explore these issues, but it requires us to develop a vocabulary for discussion. This paper proposes some initial terminology for discussing the motivations of evaluation. Specifically, the scales of actionability and persuasiveness can provide a framework for understanding the motivations of evaluation, and how these relate to the interests of various stakeholders in visualizations. It can help keep issues such as audience, reporting and assessment in focus as evaluation expands to new methods.
The four-level nested model revisited: blocks and guidelines BIBAFull-Text 11
  Miriah Meyer; Michael Sedlmair; Tamara Munzner
We propose an extension to the four-level nested model of design and validation of visualization system that defines the term "guidelines" in terms of blocks at each level. Blocks are the outcomes of the design process at a specific level, and guidelines discuss relationships between these blocks. Within-level guidelines provide comparisons for blocks within the same level, while between-level guidelines provide mappings between adjacent levels of design. These guidelines help a designer choose which abstractions, techniques, and algorithms are reasonable to combine when building a visualization system. This definition of guideline allows analysis of how the validation efforts in different kinds of papers typically lead to different kinds of guidelines. Analysis through the lens of blocks and guidelines also led us to identify four major needs: a definition of the meaning of block at the problem level; mid-level task taxonomies to fill in the blocks at the abstraction level; refinement of the model itself at the abstraction level; and a more complete set of mappings up from the algorithm level to the technique level. These gaps in visualization knowledge present rich opportunities for future work.

New evaluation framework: What can we learn from patterns and templates and apply to visualization evaluation?

Patterns for visualization evaluation BIBAFull-Text 12
  Niklas Elmqvist; Ji Soo Yi
We propose a patterns-based approach to evaluating data visualization: a set of general and reusable solutions to commonly occurring problems in evaluating tools, techniques, and systems for visual sensemaking. Patterns have had significant impact in a wide array of disciplines, particularly software engineering, and we believe that they provide a powerful lens for looking at visualization evaluation by offering practical, tried-and-tested tips and tricks that can be adopted immediately. The 12 patterns presented here have also been added to a freely editable Wiki repository. The motivation for creating this evaluation pattern language is to (a) disseminate hard-won experience on visualization evaluation to researchers and practitioners alike; to (b) provide a standardized vocabulary for designing visualization evaluation; and to (c) invite the community to add new evaluation patterns to a growing repository of patterns.
A reflection on seven years of the VAST challenge BIBAFull-Text 13
  Jean Scholtz; Mark A. Whiting; Catherine Plaisant; Georges Grinstein
We describe the evolution of the IEEE Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST) Challenge from its origin in 2006 to present (2012). The VAST Challenge has provided an opportunity for visual analytics researchers to test their innovative thoughts on approaching problems in a wide range of subject domains against realistic datasets and problem scenarios. Over time, the Challenge has changed to correspond to the needs of researchers and users. We describe those changes and the impacts they have had on topics selected, data and questions offered, submissions received, and the Challenge format.

Novel methods

Evaluating analytic performance BIBAFull-Text 14
  Linda T. Kaastra; Richard Arias-Hernandez; Brian Fisher
In this position paper we propose a performance science approach to evaluation of visual analytics systems.

Improving existing methods

How to filter out random clickers in a crowdsourcing-based study? BIBAFull-Text 15
  Sung-Hee Kim; Hyokun Yun; Ji Soo Yi
Crowdsourcing-based user studies have become increasingly popular in information visualization (InfoVis) and visual analytics (VA). However, it is still unclear how to deal with some undesired crowdsourcing workers, especially those who submit random responses simply to gain wages (random clickers, henceforth). In order to mitigate the impacts of random clickers, several studies simply exclude outliers, but this approach has a potential risk of losing data from participants whose performances are extreme even though they participated faithfully. In this paper, we evaluated the degree of randomness in responses from a crowdsourcing worker to infer whether the worker is a random clicker. Thus, we could reliably filter out random clickers and found that resulting data from crowdsourcing-based user studies were comparable with those of a controlled lab study. We also tested three representative reward schemes (piece-rate, quota, and punishment schemes) with four different levels of compensations ($0.00, $0.20, $1.00, and $4.00) on a crowdsourcing platform with a total of 1,500 crowdsourcing workers to investigate the influences that different payment conditions have on the number of random clickers. The results show that higher compensations decrease the proportion of random clickers, but such increase in participation quality cannot justify the associated additional costs. A detailed discussion on how to optimize the payment scheme and amount to obtain high-quality data economically is provided.
Questionnaires for evaluation in information visualization BIBAFull-Text 16
  Camilla Forsell; Matthew Cooper
The position taken in this paper is that the availability of standardized questionnaires specifically developed for measuring users' perception of usability in evaluation studies in information visualization would provide the community with an excellent additional instrument. The need for such an instrument is evident for several important reasons. Pursuing the development, validation and use of questionnaires will add significantly to the evidence base necessary for the community to guide the production of high-quality visualization techniques, facilitate adoption by users, promote successful commercialization and guide future research tasks.
Methodologies for the analysis of usage patterns in information visualization BIBAFull-Text 17
  Margit Pohl
In this position paper, we describe two methods for the analysis of sequences of interaction with information visualization tools -- log file analysis and thinking aloud. Such an analysis is valuable because it can help designers to understand cognition processes of the users and, as a consequence, to improve the design of information visualizations. In this context, we also discuss the issue of categorization of user activities. Categorization helps researchers to generalize results and compare different information visualization tools.