Search for: All records

The growing popularity of interactive time series exploration platforms has made data visualization more accessible to the public. However, the ease of creating polished charts with preloaded data also enables selective information presentation, often resulting in biased or misleading visualizations. Research shows that these tools have been used to spread misinformation, particularly in areas such as public health and economic policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Post hoc fact-checking may be ineffective because it typically addresses only a portion of misleading posts and comes too late to curb the spread. In this work, we explore using visualization design to counteract cherry-picking, a common tactic in deceptive visualizations. We propose a design space of guardrails—interventions to expose cherry-picking in time-series explorers. Through three crowd-sourced experiments, we demonstrate that guardrails, particularly those superimposing data, can encourage skepticism, though with some limitations. We provide recommendations for developing more effective visualization guardrails. 

Attempting to make sense of a phenomenon or crisis, social media users often share data visualizations and interpretations that can be erroneous or misleading. Prior work has studied how data visualizations can mislead, but do misleading visualizations reach a broad social media audience? And if so, do users amplify or challenge misleading interpretations? To answer these questions, we conducted a mixed-methods analysis of the public's engagement with data visualization posts about COVID-19 on Twitter. Compared to posts with accurate visual insights, our results show that posts with misleading visualizations garner more replies in which the audiences point out nuanced fallacies and caveats in data interpretations. Based on the results of our thematic analysis of engagement, we identify and discuss important opportunities and limitations to effectively leveraging crowdsourced assessments to address data-driven misinformation. 

Data visualizations can empower an audience to make informed decisions. At the same time, deceptive representations of data can lead to inaccurate interpretations while still providing an illusion of data-driven insights. Existing research on misleading visualizations primarily focuses on examples of charts and techniques previously reported to be deceptive. These approaches do not necessarily describe how charts mislead the general population in practice. We instead present an analysis of data visualizations found in a real-world discourse of a significant global event---Twitter posts with visualizations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our work shows that, contrary to conventional wisdom, violations of visualization design guidelines are not the dominant way people mislead with charts. Specifically, they do not disproportionately lead to reasoning errors in posters' arguments. Through a series of examples, we present common reasoning errors and discuss how even faithfully plotted data visualizations can be used to support misinformation online. 

Data science has become an important topic for the CHI conference and community, as shown by many papers and a series of workshops. Previous workshops have taken a critical view of data science from an HCI perspective, working toward a more human–centered treatment of the work of data science and the people who perform the many activities of data science. However, those approaches have not thoroughly examined their own grounds of criticism. In this workshop, we deepen that critical view by turning a reflective lens on the HCI work itself that addresses data science. We invite new perspectives from the diverse research and practice traditions in the broader CHI community, and we hope to co-create a new research agenda that addresses both data science and human-centered approaches to data science. 

Abstract During the last few decades, scientific capabilities for understanding and predicting weather and climate risks have advanced rapidly. At the same time, technological advances, such as the Internet, mobile devices, and social media, are transforming how people exchange and interact with information. In this modern information environment, risk communication, interpretation, and decision-making are rapidly evolving processes that intersect across space, time, and society. Instead of a linear or iterative process in which individual members of the public assess and respond to distinct pieces of weather forecast or warning information, this article conceives of weather prediction, communication, and decision-making as an interconnected dynamic system. In this expanded framework, information and uncertainty evolve in conjunction with people’s risk perceptions, vulnerabilities, and decisions as a hazardous weather threat approaches; these processes are intertwined with evolving social interactions in the physical and digital worlds. Along with the framework, the article presents two interdisciplinary research approaches for advancing the understanding of this complex system and the processes within it: analysis of social media streams and computational natural–human system modeling. Examples from ongoing research are used to demonstrate these approaches and illustrate the types of new insights they can reveal. This expanded perspective together with research approaches, such as those introduced, can help researchers and practitioners understand and improve the creation and communication of information in atmospheric science and other fields.