Search for: All records

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. 

In this paper, we present a new benchmark to validate the suitability of database systems for interactive visualization workloads. While there exist proposals for evaluating database systems on interactive data exploration workloads, none rely on real user traces for database benchmarking. To this end, our long term goal is to collect user traces that represent workloads with different exploration characteristics. In this paper, we present an initial benchmark that focuses on "crossfilter"-style applications, which are a popular interaction type for data exploration and a particularly demanding scenario for testing database system performance. We make our benchmark materials, including input datasets, interaction sequences, corresponding SQL queries, and analysis code, freely available as a community resource, to foster further research in this area: https://osf.io/9xerb/?view_only=81de1a3f99d04529b6b173a3bd5b4d23. 

More visualization systems are simplifying the data analysis process by automatically suggesting relevant visualizations. However, little work has been done to understand if users trust these automated recommendations. In this paper, we present the results of a crowd-sourced study exploring preferences and perceived quality of recommendations that have been positioned as either human-curated or algorithmically generated. We observe that while participants initially prefer human recommenders, their actions suggest an indifference for recommendation source when evaluating visualization recommendations. The relevance of presented information (e.g., the presence of certain data fields) was the most critical factor, followed by a belief in the recommender’s ability to create accurate visualizations. Our findings suggest a general indifference towards the provenance of recommendations, and point to idiosyncratic definitions of visualization quality and trustworthiness that may not be captured by simple measures. We suggest that recommendation systems should be tailored to the information-foraging strategies of specific users. 

Database management systems (or DBMSs) have been around for decades, and yet are still difficult to use, particularly when trying to identify and fix errors in user programs (or queries). We seek to understand what methods have been proposed to help people debug database queries, and whether these techniques have ultimately been adopted by DBMSs (and users). We conducted an interdisciplinary review of 112 papers and tools from the database, visualisation and HCI communities. To better understand whether academic and industry approaches are meeting the needs of users, we interviewed 20 database users (and some designers), and found surprising results. In particular, there seems to be a wide gulf between users' debugging strategies and the functionality implemented in existing DBMSs, as well as proposed in the literature. In response, we propose new design guidelines to help system designers to build features that more closely match users debugging strategies.