We present the results of a user study comparing variants of commonly used line symbolizations for directed origin-destination flow maps. Our design and evaluation consisted of five line symbolizations that employ a combination of following visual variables: arrowheads, origin-destination coloring (color hue, and value), line shortening, line width, tapered edges (varying width from wide to narrow, and narrow to wide), and curvature asymmetry and strength. To guide our evaluation, we used a task-by-type typology and chose four representative tasks that are commonly used in flow map reading: identifying dominant direction of flows, flows with the highest magnitude (volume), spatial focusing of long flows toward a destination, and clusters of high netexports (net-outflow). We systematically analyzed user responses and task performance which we measured by task completion time and accuracy. We designed a web-based flow mapping and testing framework and recruited the participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk. To demonstrate the application and user experiment, we used 16 commodity flow data sets in the United States from 2007 and systematically rotated the layouts to evaluate the effect of layout orientation. From this study, we can conclude that there is potential usefulness for all of the five symbolizations we tested; however, the influence of the design on performance and perception depends on the type of the task. Also, we found that data and layout orientation have significant effects on performance and perception of patterns in flow maps which we attribute to the change in visual saliency of node and flow patterns in relation to the way users scan the map. We recommend that the choice of line symbolization should be guided by a task taxonomy which end users are expected to perform. We discuss various design trade-offs and recommendations and potential future work for designing and evaluating line symbolizations for flow mapping.
Thanks to recent advances in high-performance computing and deep learning, computer vision algorithms coupled with spatial analysis methods provide a unique opportunity for extracting human activity patterns from geo-tagged social media images. However, there are only a handful of studies that evaluate the utility of computer vision algorithms for studying large-scale human activity patterns. In this article, we introduce an analytical framework that integrates a computer vision algorithm based on convolutional neural networks (CNN) with kernel density estimation to identify objects, and infer human activity patterns from geo-tagged photographs. To demonstrate our framework, we identify bird images to infer birdwatching activity from approximately 20 million publicly shared images on Flickr, across a three-year period from December 2013 to December 2016. In order to assess the accuracy of object detection, we compared results from the computer vision algorithm to concept-based image retrieval, which is based on keyword search on image metadata such as textual description, tags, and titles of images. We then compared patterns in birding activity generated using Flickr bird photographs with patterns identified using eBird data—an online citizen science bird observation application. The results of our eBird comparison highlight the potential differences and biases in casual and serious birdwatching, and similarities and differences among behaviors of social media and citizen science users. Our analysis results provide valuable insights into assessing the credibility and utility of geo-tagged photographs in studying human activity patterns through object detection and spatial analysis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.