Evaluating visualizations: using a taxonomic guide

Morse, Emile L.; Lewis, Michael; Olsen, Kai A.

doi:10.1006/ijhc.2000.0412

Cited by 52 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We plan to further investigate the above hypotheses, make them more concrete, and thereby connect them with some of the more low-level tasks studied in [2], [4], [5], [10] and [12]. Of particular interest would be comparisons with long-time users to study practice effects [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical comparison of three commercial information visualization systems

Kobsa

2001

IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2001. INFOVIS 2001.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical comparison of three commercial information visualization systems

Kobsa

2001

IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2001. INFOVIS 2001.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Shneiderman's infamous visual information seeking mantra summarizes this effort: "Overview first, zoom and filter, then details on demand" (2003). Several visualization task taxonomies have been proposed to provide a structure for user such as aggregating, clustering, and highlighting so that systems can be designed to accommodate the user's perspective (Morse, Lewis, & Olsen, 2000;Shneiderman, 2003;Zhou & Feiner, 1998).…”

Section: Information Visualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Issues in User-Centered Design in LIS

Bowler¹,

Koshman²,

Oh³

et al. 2011

lib

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to survey the landscape of user-centered design in LIS. We begin the article by exploring the history of the "user-centered paradigm," looking first at the historical schism between behavioral science and computer science, and then surveying some of the methods of user-centered design. In the next section we present examples of technological artifacts that reflect the basic functions of information systems-artifacts designed to collect, organize, and retrieve information-as a way to present some of the difficulties and opportunities that surround the creations of user-centered design. Specifically, we look at how user-centered design relates to personal collections, social bookmarking, finding aids, Web interface design, information architecture, visualization systems, and personalization and adaptive search. The article then steps back and looks at design through the wider lens of values, asking the question, how are users represented (or misrepresented) through cultural, ethical, and political forces that influence information system design? The article concludes with a summary of the major issues to emerge from our survey of the current state of user-centered design and from this we extract some key lessons vis à vis research and teaching in LIS.

show abstract

“…A set of low-level, domain-independent visual tasks were used to examine general and fundamental steps users perform using an interface when trying to retrieve information [22,29]. Examples of these low-level tasks include locate, identify, distinguish, emphasize, reveal, categorize, cluster, distribution, rank, compare, associate, and correlate [22,29,31].…”

Section: Task Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples of these low-level tasks include locate, identify, distinguish, emphasize, reveal, categorize, cluster, distribution, rank, compare, associate, and correlate [22,29,31]. By using these lowlevel visual tasks, we can eliminate features that are specific to the domain of a visualization application and focus only on the visualization components in system evaluation.…”

Section: Task Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visualizing criminal relationships: comparison of a hyperbolic tree and a hierarchical list

Xiang

Chau

Atabakhsh

et al. 2005

Decision Support Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In crime analysis, law enforcement officials have to process a large amount of criminal data and figure out their relationships. It is important to identify different associations among criminal entities. In this paper, we propose the use of a hyperbolic tree view and a hierarchical list view to visualize criminal relationships. A prototype system called COPLINK Criminal Relationship Visualizer was developed. An experiment was conducted to test the effectiveness and the efficiency of the two views. The results show that the hyperbolic tree view is more effective for an bidentifyQ task and more efficient for an bassociateQ task. The participants generally thought it was easier to use the hierarchical list, with which they were more familiar. When asked about the usefulness of the two views, about half of the participants thought that the hyperbolic tree was more useful, while the other half thought otherwise. Our results indicate that both views can help in criminal relationship visualization. While the hyperbolic tree view performs better in some tasks, the users' experiences and preferences will impact the decision on choosing the visualization technique. D

show abstract

Evaluating visualizations: using a taxonomic guide

Cited by 52 publications

References 12 publications

An empirical comparison of three commercial information visualization systems

An empirical comparison of three commercial information visualization systems

Issues in User-Centered Design in LIS

Visualizing criminal relationships: comparison of a hyperbolic tree and a hierarchical list

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About