Search for: All records

Temporal event sequence alignment has been used in many domains to visualize nuanced changes and interactions over time. Existing approaches align one or two sentinel events. Overview tasks require examining all alignments of interest using interaction and time or juxtaposition of many visualizations. Furthermore, any event attribute overviews are not closely tied to sequence visualizations. We present SEQUENCE BRAIDING, a novel overview visualization for temporal event sequences and attributes using a layered directed acyclic network. SEQUENCE BRAIDING visually aligns many temporal events and attribute groups simultaneously and supports arbitrary ordering, absence, and duplication of events. In a controlled experiment we compare SEQUENCE BRAIDING and IDMVis on user task completion time, correctness, error, and confidence. Our results provide good evidence that users of SEQUENCE BRAIDING can understand high-level patterns and trends faster and with similar error. A full version of this paper with all appendices; the evaluation stimuli, data, and analysis code; and source code are available at osf.io/mq2wt. 

Composite temporal event sequence visualizations have included sentinel event alignment techniques to cope with data volume and variety. Prior work has demonstrated the utility of using single-event alignment for understanding the precursor, co-occurring, and aftereffect events surrounding a sentinel event. However, the usefulness of single-event alignment has not been sufficiently evaluated in composite visualizations. Furthermore, recently proposed dual-event alignment techniques have not been empirically evaluated. In this work, we designed tasks around temporal event sequence and timing analysis and conducted a controlled experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk to examine four sentinel event alignment approaches: no sentinel event alignment (NoAlign), single-event alignment (SingleAlign), dual-event alignment with left justification (DualLeft), and dual-event alignment with stretch justification (DualStretch). Differences between approaches were most pronounced with more rows of data. For understanding intermediate events between two sentinel events, dual-event alignment was the clear winner for correctness-71% vs. 18% for NoAlign and SingleAlign. For understanding the duration between two sentinel events, NoAlign was the clear winner: correctness-88% vs. 36% for DualStretch- completion time-55 seconds vs. 101 seconds for DualLeft-and error-1.5% vs. 8.4% for DualStretch. For understanding precursor and aftereffect events, there was no significant difference among approaches. A free copy of this paper, the evaluation stimuli and data, and source code are available at osf.io/78fs5