Geographic Visualization 2008
DOI: 10.1002/9780470987643.ch3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Coordinated Multiple Views for Exploratory GeoVisualization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
33
0
3

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
1
33
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The ability to interact with a map (e.g., zoom in for greater detail, zoom out for context, add or change map symbols) allows users to explore spatial patterns and trends and leads to understanding about the true nature of a geographic phenomenon or process [11]. In short, "insight is formed through interaction" [32]. However, there is also evidence that too many options for interaction may act to inhibit use of an interactive map or may confuse the point of a visualization or map [5,11].…”
Section: Web Mapping and Interactive Cartographymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ability to interact with a map (e.g., zoom in for greater detail, zoom out for context, add or change map symbols) allows users to explore spatial patterns and trends and leads to understanding about the true nature of a geographic phenomenon or process [11]. In short, "insight is formed through interaction" [32]. However, there is also evidence that too many options for interaction may act to inhibit use of an interactive map or may confuse the point of a visualization or map [5,11].…”
Section: Web Mapping and Interactive Cartographymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Apart from T2, map, PCP and table-oriented users were distinguished by tasks. Participants' willingness to work with a particular visualization method in various task types supports Roberts's (2008) claim that users might find different methods better for data manipulation. Response times and accuracy did not differ for users who focused on different views and those who used only one view in a particular task, confirming Edsall's (2003a) conclusion that there is no difference in response accuracy between visualization methods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…We selected these three visualization methods for the following reasons: maps are canonical in geographical displays (Roberts 2008), data displays such as interactive PCPs serve as components in most CMV tools, while tables are well known to users and are useful if equipped with the proper interaction techniques (Rao and Card 1994). We wanted to know whether users would willingly use a variety of displays that had different visualization methods, or reluctantly refer to different views in order to reduce the cognitive effort connected with context switching.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CMV, or MLV (Multiple Linked Views) in some papers (Erbacher & Frincke, 2007;Jern, Johansson, Johansson, & Franzen, 2007;Roberts, 2004), provides an exploratory visualization (EV) environment, "where each of the views are linked together such that any user manipulation in one view is automatically coordinated to that of any other" to promote "insight through interaction" (Roberts, 2008). In this interactive visualization construct, two or more data views of identical or related datasets are made interdependent in order to enhance the data exploration and information seeking behavior of the user (Buja, Cook, & Swayne, 1996;Buja, McDonald, Michalak, & Stuetzle, 1991).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%