Designing With Pictographs: Envision Topics Without Sacrificing Understanding

Mind Drifts, Data Shifts: Utilizing Mind Wandering to Track the Evolution of User Experience with Data Visualizations

User experience in data visualization is typically assessed through post-viewing self-reports, but these overlook the dynamic cognitive processes during interaction. This study explores the use of mind wandering- a phenomenon where attention spontaneously shifts from a primary task to internal, task-related thoughts or unrelated distractions- as a dynamic measure during visualization exploration. Participants reported mind wandering while viewing visualizations from a pre-labeled visualization database and then provided quantitative ratings of trust, engagement, and design quality, along with qualitative descriptions and short-term/long-term recall assessments. Results show that mind wandering negatively affects short-term visualization recall and various post-viewing measures, particularly for visualizations with little text annotation. Further, the type of mind wandering impacts engagement and emotional response. Mind wandering also functions as an intermediate process linking visualization design elements to post-viewing measures, influencing how viewers engage with and interpret visual information over time. Overall, this research underscores the importance of incorporating mind wandering as a dynamic measure in visualization design and evaluation, offering novel avenues for enhancing user engagement and comprehension.

From Invisible to Visible: Impacts of Metadata in Communicative Data Visualization

Leaving the context of visualizations invisible can have negative impacts on understanding and transparency. While common wisdom suggests that recontextualizing visualizations with metadata (e.g., disclosing the data source or instructions for decoding the visualizations' encoding) may counter these effects, the impact remains largely unknown. To fill this gap, we conducted two experiments. In Experiment 1, we explored how chart type, topic, and user goal impacted which categories of metadata participants deemed most relevant. We presented 64 participants with four real-world visualizations. For each visualization, participants were given four goals and selected the type of metadata they most wanted from a set of 18 types. Our results indicated that participants were most interested in metadata which explained the visualization's encoding for goals related to understanding and metadata about the source of the data for assessing trustworthiness. In Experiment 2, we explored how these two types of metadata impact transparency, trustworthiness and persuasiveness, information relevance, and understanding. We asked 144 participants to explain the main message of two pairs of visualizations (one with metadata and one without); rate them on scales of transparency and relevance; and then predict the likelihood that they were selected for a presentation to policymakers. Our results suggested that visualizations with metadata were perceived as more thorough than those without metadata, but similarly relevant, accurate, clear, and complete. Additionally, we found that metadata did not impact the accuracy of the information extracted from visualizations, but may have influenced which information participants remembered as important or interesting.

Image or Information? Examining the Nature and Impact of Visualization Perceptual Classification

How do people internalize visualizations: as images or information? In this study, we investigate the nature of internalization for visualizations (i.e., how the mind encodes visualizations in memory) and how memory encoding affects its retrieval. This exploratory work examines the influence of various design elements on a user's perception of a chart. Specifically, which design elements lead to perceptions of visualization as an image (aims to provide visual references, evoke emotions, express creativity, and inspire philosophic thought) or as information (aims to present complex data, information, or ideas concisely and promote analytical thinking)? Understanding how design elements contribute to viewers perceiving a visualization more as an image or information will help designers decide which elements to include to achieve their communication goals. For this study, we annotated 500 visualizations and analyzed the responses of 250 online participants, who rated the visualizations on a bilinear scale as 'image' or 'information.' We then conducted an in-person study ( n = 101) using a free recall task to examine how the image/information ratings and design elements impacted memory. The results revealed several interesting findings: Image-rated visualizations were perceived as more aesthetically 'appealing,' 'enjoyable,' and 'pleasing.' Information-rated visualizations were perceived as less 'difficult to understand' and more aesthetically 'likable' and 'nice,' though participants expressed higher 'positive' sentiment when viewing image-rated visualizations and felt less 'guided to a conclusion.' The presence of axes and text annotations heavily influenced the likelihood of participants rating the visualization as 'information.' We also found different patterns among participants that were older. Importantly, we show that visualizations internalized as 'images' are less effective in conveying trends and messages, though they elicit a more positive emotional judgment, while 'informative' visualizations exhibit annotation focused recall and elicit a more positive design judgment. We discuss the implications of this dissociation between aesthetic pleasure and perceived ease of use in visualization design.

A Perception Study for Unit Charts in the Context of Large-Magnitude Data Representation

Unit charts are a common type of chart for visualizing scientific data. A unit chart is a chart used to communicate quantities of things by making the number of symbols on the chart proportional to the number of items represented. An accurate perception of the order of magnitude is essential to evaluating whether a unit chart can effectively convey information. Previous studies have primarily focused on perceptual properties at small order-of-magnitude scales or the efficacy of pictographs in unit charts. However, few researchers have explored the perceptual effectiveness of unit charts when representing large orders of magnitude. In this study, we performed a series of sampling measurements to investigate the visual–perceptual characteristics of unit charts when representing asymmetric interactions such as large-scale numbers. The results showed that under the restriction of the current conventional display medium, unit charts still offer a significant advantage over bar charts in a single-scale visual overview. However, this comes at the cost of a longer response time. Although this study constitutes basic research, accumulating evidence about how people reason about magnitudes beyond human perception is critical to the field of information science. This study may contribute to understanding how viewers perceive unit charts and the factors that influence graphical perception. This article provides some specific guidelines for designing unit charts that may be useful to visualization designers.

Affective Learning Objectives for Communicative Visualizations

When designing communicative visualizations, we often focus on goals that seek to convey patterns, relations, or comparisons (cognitive learning objectives). We pay less attention to affective intents-those that seek to influence or leverage the audience's opinions, attitudes, or values in some way. Affective objectives may range in outcomes from making the viewer care about the subject, strengthening a stance on an opinion, or leading them to take further action. Because such goals are often considered a violation of perceived 'neutrality' or are 'political,' designers may resist or be unable to describe these intents, let alone formalize them as learning objectives. While there are notable exceptions-such as advocacy visualizations or persuasive cartography-we find that visualization designers rarely acknowledge or formalize affective objectives. Through interviews with visualization designers, we expand on prior work on using learning objectives as a framework for describing and assessing communicative intent. Specifically, we extend and revise the framework to include a set of affective learning objectives. This structured taxonomy can help designers identify and declare their goals and compare and assess designs in a more principled way. Additionally, the taxonomy can enable external critique and analysis of visualizations. We illustrate the use of the taxonomy with a critical analysis of an affective visualization.

Dispersion vs Disparity: Hiding Variability Can Encourage Stereotyping When Visualizing Social Outcomes

Visualization research often focuses on perceptual accuracy or helping readers interpret key messages. However, we know very little about how chart designs might influence readers' perceptions of the people behind the data. Specifically, could designs interact with readers' social cognitive biases in ways that perpetuate harmful stereotypes? For example, when analyzing social inequality, bar charts are a popular choice to present outcome disparities between race, gender, or other groups. But bar charts may encourage deficit thinking, the perception that outcome disparities are caused by groups' personal strengths or deficiencies, rather than external factors. These faulty personal attributions can then reinforce stereotypes about the groups being visualized. We conducted four experiments examining design choices that influence attribution biases (and therefore deficit thinking). Crowdworkers viewed visualizations depicting social outcomes that either mask variability in data, such as bar charts or dot plots, or emphasize variability in data, such as jitter plots or prediction intervals. They reported their agreement with both personal and external explanations for the visualized disparities. Overall, when participants saw visualizations that hide within-group variability, they agreed more with personal explanations. When they saw visualizations that emphasize within-group variability, they agreed less with personal explanations. These results demonstrate that data visualizations about social inequity can be misinterpreted in harmful ways and lead to stereotyping. Design choices can influence these biases: Hiding variability tends to increase stereotyping while emphasizing variability reduces it.