Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
38 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Do You See What I See? A Qualitative Study Eliciting High-Level Visualization Comprehension (2402.15605v1)

Published 23 Feb 2024 in cs.HC

Abstract: Designers often create visualizations to achieve specific high-level analytical or communication goals. These goals require people to naturally extract complex, contextualized, and interconnected patterns in data. While limited prior work has studied general high-level interpretation, prevailing perceptual studies of visualization effectiveness primarily focus on isolated, predefined, low-level tasks, such as estimating statistical quantities. This study more holistically explores visualization interpretation to examine the alignment between designers' communicative goals and what their audience sees in a visualization, which we refer to as their comprehension. We found that statistics people effectively estimate from visualizations in classical graphical perception studies may differ from the patterns people intuitively comprehend in a visualization. We conducted a qualitative study on three types of visualizations -- line graphs, bar graphs, and scatterplots -- to investigate the high-level patterns people naturally draw from a visualization. Participants described a series of graphs using natural language and think-aloud protocols. We found that comprehension varies with a range of factors, including graph complexity and data distribution. Specifically, 1) a visualization's stated objective often does not align with people's comprehension, 2) results from traditional experiments may not predict the knowledge people build with a graph, and 3) chart type alone is insufficient to predict the information people extract from a graph. Our study confirms the importance of defining visualization effectiveness from multiple perspectives to assess and inform visualization practices.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (141)
  1. Eytan Adar and Elsie Lee. 2020. Communicative visualizations as a learning problem. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 27, 2 (2020), 946–956.
  2. Afghanistan population dataset 2023. Afghanistan population dataset. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=AF.
  3. Airlines 2022. Airlines Dataset. https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2022-annual-and-4th-quarter-us-airline-financial-data.
  4. Dataset to support the adoption of social media and emerging technologies for students’ continuous engagement. Data in Brief 31 (2020), 105926.
  5. Task-driven evaluation of aggregation in time series visualization. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst (CHI). 551–560.
  6. Low-level components of analytic activity in information visualization. In IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis). 111–117.
  7. Auto MPG 2017. Auto MPG Dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/uciml/autompg-dataset.
  8. Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16, 8 (2012), 437–443.
  9. Perceiving relationships: A physiological examination of the perception of scatterplots. In Proc. 4th Conference on Diagrammatic Representation and Inference.
  10. Jurassic mark: Inattentional blindness for a datasaurus reveals that visualizations are explored, not seen. In 2021 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS). IEEE, 71–75.
  11. Beyond memorability: Visualization recognition and recall. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 22, 1 (2015), 519–528.
  12. What makes a visualization memorable? IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 19, 12 (2013), 2306–2315.
  13. Enabling Longitudinal Exploratory Analysis of Clinical COVID Data. In IEEE Workshop on Visual Analytics in Healthcare (VAHC). 19–24.
  14. Matthew Brehmer and Tamara Munzner. 2013. A multi-level typology of abstract visualization tasks. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 19, 12 (2013), 2376–2385.
  15. Who Do We Mean When We Talk About Visualization Novices?. In Proc. 2023 ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst. 1–16.
  16. How to evaluate data visualizations across different levels of understanding. In IEEE Workshop on Evaluation and Beyond-Methodological Approaches to Visualization (BELIV). IEEE, 19–28.
  17. Calories Burned 2020. Calories Burned During Exercise and Activities. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/aadhavvignesh/calories-burned-during-exercise-and-activities.
  18. Car Model Dataset 2023. Car Model Dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/peshimaammuzammil/2023-car-model-dataset-all-data-you-need.
  19. Mackinlay Card. 1999. Readings in information visualization: using vision to think. Morgan Kaufmann.
  20. Subjectivity in personal storytelling with visualization. Inf. Des. J. 23, 1 (2017), 48–64.
  21. Certificated Air Carrier 2021. Certificated Air Carrier Fuel Consumption and Travel. https://www.bts.gov/content/certificated-air-carrier-fuel-consumption-and-travel.
  22. The generalized sensitivity scatterplot. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 19, 10 (2013), 1768–1781.
  23. Defining insight for visual analytics. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 29, 2 (2009), 14–17.
  24. How Do Captions Affect Visualization Reading? arXiv preprint (2022).
  25. Evaluating the impact of visualization of wildfire hazard upon decision-making under uncertainty. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 30, 7 (2016), 1377–1404.
  26. William Cleveland and Robert McGill. 1984. Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 79, 387 (1984), 531–554.
  27. William S Cleveland and Robert McGill. 1986. An experiment in graphical perception. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 25, 5 (1986), 491–500.
  28. Visual attention: bottom-up versus top-down. Current Biology 14, 19 (2004), R850–R852.
  29. Comparing averages in time series data. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst (CHI). 1095–1104.
  30. Michael Correll and Jeffrey Heer. 2017a. Black hat visualization. In IEEE Workshop on Dealing with Cognitive Biases in Visualisations (DECISIVe), Vol. 1. 10.
  31. Michael Correll and Jeffrey Heer. 2017b. Regression by eye: Estimating trends in bivariate visualizations. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst (CHI). 1387–1396.
  32. CPU Specifications 2022. CPU Specifications Dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/lincolnzh/cpu-specifications-dataset.
  33. Will Cukierski. 2012. Titanic - Machine Learning from Disaster. https://kaggle.com/competitions/titanic
  34. S Dixon. 2022. Average daily time spent on social media worldwide 2012-2022. Erişim Tarihi 22 (2022), 2022.
  35. A Design Space of Vision Science Methods for Visualization Research. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph (2020).
  36. The science of visual data communication: What works. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 22, 3 (2021), 110–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211051956
  37. Detection of benign and malignant tumors in skin empowered with transfer learning. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2022 (2022).
  38. JJ Gibson. 1972. A theory of direct visual perception. In the Psychology of Knowing, ed. JR Royce, WW Roze-boom, 215-27. New York: Gordon & Breach 63 (1972), 396–97.
  39. Michael Gleicher. 2017. Considerations for visualizing comparison. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 24, 1 (2017), 413–423.
  40. Visual comparison for information visualization. Inf Vis 10, 4 (2011), 289–309.
  41. Perception of average value in multiclass scatterplots. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 19 (2013).
  42. Global Summary 2023. Global Summary of the Day station observations. http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.NOAA/.NCEP/.CPC/.GLOBAL/.STATION.cuf/.
  43. Comparing similarity perception in time series visualizations. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph (2018).
  44. Goverment Bond Dataset 2023. Goverment Bond Dataset. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRLTLT01USM156N.
  45. The relation between visualization size, grouping, and user performance. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph (2014).
  46. How information visualization novices construct visualizations. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 16, 6 (2010), 943–952.
  47. Grand Slam Title Winners 2023. Grand Slam Title Winners. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/abrafey/mens-womans-grand-slam-title-winners.
  48. Richard Langton Gregory. 1974. Concepts and mechanisms of perception. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
  49. Professional differences: A comparative study of visualization task performance and spatial ability across disciplines. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 28, 1 (2021), 654–664.
  50. Influencing visual judgment through affective priming. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst (CHI).
  51. Ranking visualizations of correlation using weber’s law. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 20, 12 (2014), 1943–1952.
  52. Jeffrey Heer and Michael Bostock. 2010. Crowdsourcing graphical perception: using mechanical turk to assess visualization design. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst (CHI).
  53. Creation and collaboration: Engaging new audiences for information visualization. Information Visualization: Human-Centered Issues and Perspectives (2008), 92–133.
  54. Historical Weather Dataset 2017. Historical Weather Dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/selfishgene/historical-hourly-weather-data.
  55. The Weighted Average Illusion: Biases in Perceived Mean Position in Scatterplots. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 28, 1 (2021), 987–997.
  56. palmerpenguins: Palmer Archipelago (Antarctica) penguin data. R package version 0.1. 0 (2020).
  57. Household monthly electricity bill 2020. Household monthly electricity bill. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/gireeshs/household-monthly-electricity-bill.
  58. Jessica Hullman and Nick Diakopoulos. 2011. Visualization rhetoric: Framing effects in narrative visualization. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 17, 12 (2011), 2231–2240.
  59. IMDB 2019. IMDB Dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/lakshmi25npathi/imdb-dataset-of-50k-movie-reviews.
  60. Waqas Javed and Niklas Elmqvist. 2012. Exploring the design space of composite visualization. In IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis). IEEE, 1–8.
  61. Graphical Perception of Multiple Time Series. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 16, 6 (2010), 927–934.
  62. Clams: a cluster ambiguity measure for estimating perceptual variability in visual clustering. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph (2023).
  63. A rapidly deployed, interactive, online visualization system to support fatality management during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. J Am Med Inform Assoc 27, 12 (2020), 1943–1948.
  64. Matthew Kay and Jeffrey Heer. 2016. Beyond weber’s law: A second look at ranking visualizations of correlation. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 22 (2016).
  65. BubbleView: an interface for crowdsourcing image importance maps and tracking visual attention. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 24, 5 (2017), 1–40.
  66. Younghoon Kim and Jeffrey Heer. 2018. Assessing effects of task and data distribution on the effectiveness of visual encodings. Comput Graph Forum 37, 3 (2018), 157–167.
  67. Data through others’ eyes: The impact of visualizing others’ expectations on visualization interpretation. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 24, 1 (2017), 760–769.
  68. Ron Kohavi et al. 1996. Scaling up the accuracy of naive-bayes classifiers: A decision-tree hybrid.. In Proc. ACM SIGKDD Int. (KDD), Vol. 96. 202–207.
  69. Frames and slants in titles of visualizations on controversial topics. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst (CHI). 1–12.
  70. Trust and recall of information across varying degrees of title-visualization misalignment. In Proc. 2019 ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst. 1–13.
  71. Robert Kosara. 2016. An empire built on sand: Reexamining what we think we know about visualization. In IEEE Workshop on Evaluation and Beyond-Methodological Approaches to Visualization (BELIV).
  72. Jon A Krosnick. 2018. Questionnaire design. The Palgrave handbook of survey research (2018), 439–455.
  73. Elsie Lee-Robbins and Eytan Adar. 2022. Affective Learning Objectives for Communicative Visualizations. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 29, 1 (2022), 1–11.
  74. A model of symbol size discrimination in scatterplots. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst (CHI). 2553–2562. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753714
  75. Selecting Semantically-Resonant Colors for Data Visualization. Comput Graph Forum 32, 3pt4 (2013), 401–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12127
  76. Descriptive, cross-country analysis of the nurse practitioner workforce in six countries: size, growth, physician substitution potential. BMJ Open 6, 9 (2016), e011901.
  77. Physical activity behavior before, during, and after COVID-19 restrictions: longitudinal smartphone-tracking study of adults in the United Kingdom. J. Medical Internet Res. 23, 2 (2021), e23701.
  78. Hurricane risk communication: visualization and behavioral science concepts. Weather Clim Soc 12, 2 (2020), 193–211.
  79. Minnesota Agricultural Product 2023. Minnesota Agricultural Product. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Minnesota/Publications/County_Estimates.
  80. Movie Dataset 2023. Movie Dataset: Budgets, Genres, Insights. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/utkarshx27/movies-dataset.
  81. Context matters: A theory of semantic discriminability for perceptual encoding systems. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 28, 1 (2021), 697–706.
  82. Hendrik Müller and Aaron Sedley. 2015. Designing surveys for HCI research. In Extended Abstracts of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst. 2485–2486.
  83. Tamara Munzner. 2009. A nested model for visualization design and validation. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 15, 6 (2009), 921–928.
  84. Tamara Munzner. 2014. Visualization analysis and design. CRC press.
  85. Museum visitors dataset 2019. Museum visitors dataset. https://www.opendatanetwork.com/dataset/data.lacity.org/trxm-jn3c.
  86. Ranked-List Visualization: A Graphical Perception Study. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst (CHI). 192.
  87. National Health 2023. National Health Expenditure Data. https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata.
  88. NOAA Monthly 2023. NOAA Monthly U.S. Climate Divisional Database. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00005.
  89. Chris North. 2006. Toward measuring visualization insight. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 26, 3 (2006), 6–9.
  90. Face to face: Evaluating visual comparison. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 25, 1 (2018), 861–871.
  91. Data is personal: Attitudes and perceptions of data visualization in rural pennsylvania. In Proc. 2019 ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst. 1–12.
  92. Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card. 2005. The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In Intelligence Analysis, Vol. 5. 2–4.
  93. Promoting insight-based evaluation of visualizations: From contest to benchmark repository. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 14, 1 (2007), 120–134.
  94. PM 2.5 dataset 2016. PM 2.5 dataset. https://data.cdc.gov/browse/select_dataset?tags=pm2.5.
  95. Uncertainty-aware visualization for analyzing heterogeneous wildfire detections. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 39, 5 (2019), 72–82.
  96. Product Clustering Dataset 2020. Product Clustering Dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/lakritidis/product-classification-and-categorization.
  97. Programming 2023. Programming Languages Dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/muhammadkhalid/most-popular-programming-languages-since-2004.
  98. Protein Products 2022. Protein Products Market Dataset. https://www.statista.com/topics/4232/protein-market.
  99. Automatic Scatterplot Design Optimization for Clustering Identification. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph (2022).
  100. Ghulam Jilani Quadri and Paul Rosen. 2020. Modeling the influence of visual density on cluster perception in scatterplots using topology. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 27, 2 (2020), 1829–1839.
  101. Ghulam Jilani Quadri and Paul Rosen. 2021. A survey of perception-based visualization studies by task. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph (2021).
  102. Ronald Rensink and Gideon Baldridge. 2010. The perception of correlation in scatterplots. Comput Graph Forum 29, 3 (2010), 1203–1210.
  103. Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). Our World in Data (2020).
  104. Agricultural Production. Our World in Data (2023). https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-production.
  105. CO22{}_{2}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT 2 end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Our World in Data (2020). https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
  106. Brian Rogers. 2022. Cues, clues and the cognitivisation of perception: Do words matter? Perception 51, 5 (2022), 295–299.
  107. Paul Rosen and Ghulam Jilani Quadri. 2020. Linesmooth: An analytical framework for evaluating the effectiveness of smoothing techniques on line charts. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 27, 2 (2020), 1536–1546.
  108. Non-expert interpretations of hurricane forecast uncertainty visualizations. Spatial Cognition & Computation 16, 2 (2016), 154–172.
  109. The cost structure of sensemaking. In INTERACT and ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst. 269–276.
  110. Task-based effectiveness of basic visualizations. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 25, 7 (2018), 2505–2512.
  111. Evaluating interactive graphical encodings for data visualization. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 24 (2018).
  112. An insight-based methodology for evaluating bioinformatics visualizations. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 11, 4 (2005), 443–456.
  113. An insight-based longitudinal study of visual analytics. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 12, 6 (2006), 1511–1522.
  114. A taxonomy of visual cluster separation factors. Comput Graph Forum 31, 3pt4 (2012), 1335–1344.
  115. Priti Shah and Eric G Freedman. 2011. Bar and line graph comprehension: An interaction of top-down and bottom-up processes. Top Cogn Sci 3, 3 (2011), 560–578.
  116. Stephen Smart and Danielle Albers Szafir. 2019. Measuring the Separability of Shape, Size, and Color in Scatterplots. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst (CHI). 669. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300899
  117. Hayeong Song and Danielle Albers Szafir. 2018. Where’s My Data? Evaluating Visualizations with Missing Data. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864914
  118. What’s the Difference?: Evaluating Variations of Multi-Series Bar Charts for Visual Comparison Tasks. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst (CHI). 304.
  119. Stock Market Dataset 2020. Stock Market Dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/jacksoncrow/stock-market-dataset.
  120. Striking a balance: reader takeaways and preferences when integrating text and charts. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 29, 1 (2022), 1233–1243.
  121. Supermarket sales 2019. Supermarket sales. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/aungpyaeap/supermarket-sales.
  122. Danielle Albers Szafir. 2018. Modeling color difference for visualization design. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 24, 1 (2018), 392–401.
  123. Visualization Psychology. Springer Nature.
  124. Four experiments on the perception of bar charts. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 20, 12 (2014), 2152–2160.
  125. Top Spotify 2019. Top Spotify Songs. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/leonardopena/top-spotify-songs-from-20102019-by-year.
  126. Measuring Categorical Perception in Color-Coded Scatterplots. In Proc. 2023 ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst (CHI).
  127. Edward Tufte. 1985. The visual display of quantitative information. J. Healthc. Qual. 7, 3 (1985), 15.
  128. Turtles 2013. Turtles Dataset. https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/turtle-reproductive-ecology-data-new-mexico-2012-2013.
  129. Unemployment dataset 2022. Unemployment dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/pantanjali/unemployment-dataset.
  130. UNICEF and Gallup. 2021. The Changing Childhood Project. https://changingchildhood.unicef.org/.
  131. US Health Insurance Dataset 2019. US Health Insurance Dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/teertha/ushealthinsurancedataset.
  132. Wieske van Zoest and Mieke Donk. 2004. Bottom-up and top-down control in visual search. Perception 33, 8 (2004), 927–937.
  133. A Comparison of Radial and Linear Charts for Visualizing Daily Patterns. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph (2019).
  134. A heuristic approach to value-driven evaluation of visualizations. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 25, 1 (2018), 491–500.
  135. An empirical study of counterfactual visualization to support visual causal inference. Inf Vis (2024), 14738716241229437.
  136. Understanding data accessibility for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In Proc. 2021 ACM SIGCHI Hum Factor Comput Syst (CHI). 1–16.
  137. Comparing bar chart authoring with Microsoft Excel and tangible tiles. Comput Graph Forum 35, 3 (2016), 111–120.
  138. Biased average position estimates in line and bar graphs: Underestimation, overestimation, and perceptual pull. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 26, 1 (2019), 301–310.
  139. The curse of knowledge in visual data communication. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 26, 10 (2019), 3051–3062.
  140. Youtube dislike dataset 2021. Youtube dislike dataset. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/dmitrynikolaev/youtube-dislikes-dataset.
  141. Jeff Zacks and Barbara Tversky. 1999. Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Mem Cognit 27 (1999), 1073–1079.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (6)
  1. Ghulam Jilani Quadri (16 papers)
  2. Arran Zeyu Wang (10 papers)
  3. Zhehao Wang (2 papers)
  4. Jennifer Adorno (2 papers)
  5. Paul Rosen (41 papers)
  6. Danielle Albers Szafir (21 papers)
Citations (15)