An official website of the United States government
Geographical maps encoded with rainbow color scales are widely used for spatial data analysis in climate science, despite evidence from the visualization literature that they are not perceptually optimal. We present a controlled user study that compares the effect of color scales on performance accuracy for climate-modeling tasks using pairs of continuous geographical maps generated using climatological metrics. For each pair of maps, 39 scientist-observers judged: i) the magnitude of their difference, ii) their degree of spatial similarity, and iii) the region of greatest dissimilarity between them. Besides the rainbow color scale, two other continuous color scales were chosen such that all three of them covaried two dimensions (luminance monotonicity and hue banding), hypothesized to have an impact on visual performance. We also analyzed subjective performance measures, such as user confidence, perceived accuracy, preference, and familiarity in using the different color scales. We found that monotonic luminance scales produced significantly more accurate judgments of magnitude difference but were not superior in spatial comparison tasks, and that hue banding had differential effects based on the task and conditions. Scientists expressed the highest preference and perceived confidence and accuracy with the rainbow, despite its poor performance on the magnitude comparison tasks.
more »
« less
What Does the Chart Say? Grouping Cues Guide Viewer Comparisons and Conclusions in Bar Charts
Reading a visualization is like reading a paragraph. Each sentence is a comparison: the mean of these is higher than those; this difference is smaller than that. What determines which comparisons are made first? The viewer's goals and expertise matter, but the way that values are visually grouped together within the chart also impacts those comparisons. Research from psychology suggests that comparisons involve multiple steps. First, the viewer divides the visualization into a set of units. This might include a single bar or a grouped set of bars. Then the viewer selects and compares two of these units, perhaps noting that one pair of bars is longer than another. Viewers might take an additional third step and perform a second-order comparison, perhaps determining that the difference between one pair of bars is greater than the difference between another pair. We create a visual comparison taxonomy that allows us to develop and test a sequence of hypotheses about which comparisons people are more likely to make when reading a visualization. We find that people tend to compare two groups before comparing two individual bars and that second-order comparisons are rare. Visual cues like spatial proximity and color can influence which elements are grouped together and selected for comparison, with spatial proximity being a stronger grouping cue. Interestingly, once the viewer grouped together and compared a set of bars, regardless of whether the group is formed by spatial proximity or color similarity, they no longer consider other possible groupings in their comparisons.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2311575
- PAR ID:
- 10515214
- Publisher / Repository:
- IEEE
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics
- ISSN:
- 1077-2626
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 12
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Scatterplots commonly use multiple visual channels to encode multivariate datasets. Such visualizations often use size, shape, and color as these dimensions are considered separable--dimensions represented by one channel do not significantly interfere with viewers' abilities to perceive data in another. However, recent work shows the size of marks significantly impacts color difference perceptions, leading to broader questions about the separability of these channels. In this paper, we present a series of crowdsourced experiments measuring how mark shape, size, and color influence data interpretation in multiclass scatterplots. Our results indicate that mark shape significantly influences color and size perception, and that separability among these channels functions asymmetrically: shape more strongly influences size and color perceptions in scatterplots than size and color influence shape. Models constructed from the resulting data can help designers anticipate viewer perceptions to build more effective visualizations.more » « less
-
The visualization of a network influences the quality of the mental map that the viewer develops to understand the network. In this study, we investigate the effects of a 3D immersive visualization environment compared to a traditional 2D desktop environment on the comprehension of a network’s structure. We compare the two visualization environments using three tasks—interpreting network structure, memorizing a set of nodes, and identifying the structural changes—commonly used for evaluating the quality of a mental map in network visualization. The results show that participants were able to interpret network structure more accurately when viewing the network in an immersive environment, particularly for larger networks. However, we found that 2D visualizations performed better than immersive visualization for tasks that required spatial memory.more » « less
-
Machine learning technology has become ubiquitous, but, unfortunately, often exhibits bias. As a consequence, disparate stakeholders need to interact with and make informed decisions about using machine learning models in everyday systems. Visualization technology can support stakeholders in understanding and evaluating trade-offs between, for example, accuracy and fairness of models. This paper aims to empirically answer “Can visualization design choices affect a stakeholder's perception of model bias, trust in a model, and willingness to adopt a model?” Through a series of controlled, crowd-sourced experiments with more than 1,500 participants, we identify a set of strategies people follow in deciding which models to trust. Our results show that men and women prioritize fairness and performance differently and that visual design choices significantly affect that prioritization. For example, women trust fairer models more often than men do, participants value fairness more when it is explained using text than as a bar chart, and being explicitly told a model is biased has a bigger impact than showing past biased performance. We test the generalizability of our results by comparing the effect of multiple textual and visual design choices and offer potential explanations of the cognitive mechanisms behind the difference in fairness perception and trust. Our research guides design considerations to support future work developing visualization systems for machine learning.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Although we have seen a proliferation of algorithms for recommending visualizations, these algorithms are rarely compared with one another, making it difficult to ascertain which algorithm is best for a given visual analysis scenario. Though several formal frameworks have been proposed in response, we believe this issue persists because visualization recommendation algorithms are inadequately specified from an evaluation perspective. In this paper, we propose an evaluation-focused framework to contextualize and compare a broad range of visualization recommendation algorithms. We present the structure of our framework, where algorithms are specified using three components: (1) a graph representing the full space of possible visualization designs, (2) the method used to traverse the graph for potential candidates for recommendation, and (3) an oracle used to rank candidate designs. To demonstrate how our framework guides the formal comparison of algorithmic performance, we not only theoretically compare five existing representative recommendation algorithms, but also empirically compare four new algorithms generated based on our findings from the theoretical comparison. Our results show that these algorithms behave similarly in terms of user performance, highlighting the need for more rigorous formal comparisons of recommendation algorithms to further clarify their benefits in various analysis scenarios.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.3289292
