Striking a Balance: Reader Takeaways and Preferences when Integrating Text and Charts

Chart2Vec: A Universal Embedding of Context-Aware Visualizations

The advances in AI-enabled techniques have accelerated the creation and automation of visualizations in the past decade. However, presenting visualizations in a descriptive and generative format remains a challenge. Moreover, current visualization embedding methods focus on standalone visualizations, neglecting the importance of contextual information for multi-view visualizations. To address this issue, we propose a new representation model, Chart2Vec, to learn a universal embedding of visualizations with context-aware information. Chart2Vec aims to support a wide range of downstream visualization tasks such as recommendation and storytelling. Our model considers both structural and semantic information of visualizations in declarative specifications. To enhance the context-aware capability, Chart2Vec employs multi-task learning on both supervised and unsupervised tasks concerning the cooccurrence of visualizations. We evaluate our method through an ablation study, a user study, and a quantitative comparison. The results verified the consistency of our embedding method with human cognition and showed its advantages over existing methods.

From Instruction to Insight: Exploring the Functional and Semantic Roles of Text in Interactive Dashboards

There is increased interest in understanding the interplay between text and visuals in the field of data visualization. However, this attention has predominantly been on the use of text in standalone visualizations (such as text annotation overlays) or augmenting text stories supported by a series of independent views. In this paper, we shift from the traditional focus on single-chart annotations to characterize the nuanced but crucial communication role of text in the complex environment of interactive dashboards. Through a survey and analysis of 190 dashboards in the wild, plus 13 expert interview sessions with experienced dashboard authors, we highlight the distinctive nature of text as an integral component of the dashboard experience, while delving into the categories, semantic levels, and functional roles of text, and exploring how these text elements are coalesced by dashboard authors to guide and inform dashboard users. Our contributions are threefold. First, we distill qualitative and quantitative findings from our studies to characterize current practices of text use in dashboards, including a categorization of text-based components and design patterns. Second, we leverage current practices and existing literature to propose, discuss, and validate recommended practices for text in dashboards, embodied as a set of 12 heuristics that underscore the semantic and functional role of text in offering navigational cues, contextualizing data insights, supporting reading order, among other concerns. Third, we reflect on our findings to identify gaps and propose opportunities for data visualization researchers to push the boundaries on text usage for dashboards, from authoring support and interactivity to text generation and content personalization. Our research underscores the significance of elevating text as a first-class citizen in data visualization, and the need to support the inclusion of textual components and their interactive affordances in dashboard design.

A Qualitative Analysis of Common Practices in Annotations: A Taxonomy and Design Space

Annotations play a vital role in highlighting critical aspects of visualizations, aiding in data externalization and exploration, collaborative sensemaking, and visual storytelling. However, despite their widespread use, we identified a lack of a design space for common practices for annotations. In this paper, we evaluated over 1,800 static annotated charts to understand how people annotate visualizations in practice. Through qualitative coding of these diverse real-world annotated charts, we explored three primary aspects of annotation usage patterns: analytic purposes for chart annotations (e.g., present, identify, summarize, or compare data features), mechanisms for chart annotations (e.g., types and combinations of annotations used, frequency of different annotation types across chart types, etc.), and the data source used to generate the annotations. We then synthesized our findings into a design space of annotations, highlighting key design choices for chart annotations. We presented three case studies illustrating our design space as a practical framework for chart annotations to enhance the communication of visualization insights. All supplemental materials are available at https://shorturl.at/bAGM1.

The Backstory to "Swaying the Public": A Design Chronicle of Election Forecast Visualizations

A year ago, we submitted an IEEE VIS paper entitled "Swaying the Public? Impacts of Election Forecast Visualizations on Emotion, Trust, and Intention in the 2022 U.S. Midterms" [50], which was later bestowed with the honor of a best paper award. Yet, studying such a complex phenomenon required us to explore many more design paths than we could count, and certainly more than we could document in a single paper. This paper, then, is the unwritten prequel-the backstory. It chronicles our journey from a simple idea-to study visualizations for election forecasts-through obstacles such as developing meaningfully different, easy-to-understand forecast visualizations, crafting professional-looking forecasts, and grappling with how to study perceptions of the forecasts before, during, and after the 2022 U.S. midterm elections. This journey yielded a rich set of original knowledge. We formalized a design space for two-party election forecasts, navigating through dimensions like data transformations, visual channels, and types of animated narratives. Through qualitative evaluation of ten representative prototypes with 13 participants, we then identified six core insights into the interpretation of uncertainty visualizations in a U.S. election context. These insights informed our revisions to remove ambiguity in our visual encodings and to prepare a professional-looking forecasting website. As part of this story, we also distilled challenges faced and design lessons learned to inform both designers and practitioners. Ultimately, we hope our methodical approach could inspire others in the community to tackle the hard problems inherent to designing and evaluating visualizations for the general public.

An Empirical Evaluation of the GPT-4 Multimodal Language Model on Visualization Literacy Tasks

Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 which support multimodal input (i.e., prompts containing images in addition to text) have immense potential to advance visualization research. However, many questions exist about the visual capabilities of such models, including how well they can read and interpret visually represented data. In our work, we address this question by evaluating the GPT-4 multimodal LLM using a suite of task sets meant to assess the model's visualization literacy. The task sets are based on existing work in the visualization community addressing both automated chart question answering and human visualization literacy across multiple settings. Our assessment finds that GPT-4 can perform tasks such as recognizing trends and extreme values, and also demonstrates some understanding of visualization design best-practices. By contrast, GPT-4 struggles with simple value retrieval when not provided with the original dataset, lacks the ability to reliably distinguish between colors in charts, and occasionally suffers from hallucination and inconsistency. We conclude by reflecting on the model's strengths and weaknesses as well as the potential utility of models like GPT-4 for future visualization research. We also release all code, stimuli, and results for the task sets at the following link: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F39J6.

The Role of Text in Visualizations: How Annotations Shape Perceptions of Bias and Influence Predictions

This paper investigates the role of text in visualizations, specifically the impact of text position, semantic content, and biased wording. Two empirical studies were conducted based on two tasks (predicting data trends and appraising bias) using two visualization types (bar and line charts). While the addition of text had a minimal effect on how people perceive data trends, there was a significant impact on how biased they perceive the authors to be. This finding revealed a relationship between the degree of bias in textual information and the perception of the authors' bias. Exploratory analyses support an interaction between a person's prediction and the degree of bias they perceived. This paper also develops a crowdsourced method for creating chart annotations that range from neutral to highly biased. This research highlights the need for designers to mitigate potential polarization of readers' opinions based on how authors' ideas are expressed.

What Does the Chart Say? Grouping Cues Guide Viewer Comparisons and Conclusions in Bar Charts

Reading a visualization is like reading a paragraph. Each sentence is a comparison: the mean of these is higher than those; this difference is smaller than that. What determines which comparisons are made first? The viewer's goals and expertise matter, but the way that values are visually grouped together within the chart also impacts those comparisons. Research from psychology suggests that comparisons involve multiple steps. First, the viewer divides the visualization into a set of units. This might include a single bar or a grouped set of bars. Then the viewer selects and compares two of these units, perhaps noting that one pair of bars is longer than another. Viewers might take an additional third step and perform a second-order comparison, perhaps determining that the difference between one pair of bars is greater than the difference between another pair. We create a visual comparison taxonomy that allows us to develop and test a sequence of hypotheses about which comparisons people are more likely to make when reading a visualization. We find that people tend to compare two groups before comparing two individual bars and that second-order comparisons are rare. Visual cues like spatial proximity and color can influence which elements are grouped together and selected for comparison, with spatial proximity being a stronger grouping cue. Interestingly, once the viewer grouped together and compared a set of bars, regardless of whether the group is formed by spatial proximity or color similarity, they no longer consider other possible groupings in their comparisons.

Same Data, Diverging Perspectives: The Power of Visualizations to Elicit Competing Interpretations

People routinely rely on data to make decisions, but the process can be riddled with biases. We show that patterns in data might be noticed first or more strongly, depending on how the data is visually represented or what the viewer finds salient. We also demonstrate that viewer interpretation of data is similar to that of 'ambiguous figures' such that two people looking at the same data can come to different decisions. In our studies, participants read visualizations depicting competitions between two entities, where one has a historical lead (A) but the other has been gaining momentum (B) and predicted a winner, across two chart types and three annotation approaches. They either saw the historical lead as salient and predicted that A would win, or saw the increasing momentum as salient and predicted B to win. These results suggest that decisions can be influenced by both how data are presented and what patterns people find visually salient.

Are interactive and tailored data visualizations effective in promoting flu vaccination among the elderly? Evidence from a randomized experiment

OBJECTIVE

Although interactive data visualizations are increasingly popular for health communication, it remains to be seen what design features improve psychological and behavioral targets. This study experimentally tested how interactivity and descriptive titles may influence perceived susceptibility to the flu, intention to vaccinate, and information recall, particularly among older adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We created data visualization dashboards on flu vaccinations, tested in a 2 (explanatory text vs none) × 3 (interactive + tailored, static + tailored, static + nontailored) + questionnaire-only control randomized between-participant online experiment (N   = 1378).

RESULTS

The flu dashboards significantly increased perceived susceptibility to the flu compared to the control: static+nontailored dashboard, b = 0.14, P = .049; static-tailored, b = 0.16, P = .028; and interactive+tailored, b = 0.15, P = .039. Interactive dashboards potentially decreased recall particularly among the elderly (moderation by age: b = -0.03, P = .073). The benefits of descriptive text on recall were larger among the elderly (interaction effects: b = 0.03, P = .025).

DISCUSSION

Interactive dashboards with complex statistics and limited textual information are widely used in health and public health but may be suboptimal for older individuals. We experimentally showed that adding explanatory text on visualizations can increase information recall particularly for older populations.

CONCLUSION

We did not find evidence to support the effectiveness of interactivity in data visualizations on flu vaccination intentions or on information recall. Future research should examine what types of explanatory text can best support improved health outcomes and intentions in other contexts. Practitioners should consider whether interactivity is optimal in data visualization dashboards for their populations.

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.

Swaying the Public? Impacts of Election Forecast Visualizations on Emotion, Trust, and Intention in the 2022 U.S. Midterms

We conducted a longitudinal study during the 2022 U.S. midterm elections, investigating the real-world impacts of uncertainty visualizations. Using our forecast model of the governor elections in 33 states, we created a website and deployed four uncertainty visualizations for the election forecasts: single quantile dotplot (1-Dotplot), dual quantile dotplots (2-Dotplot), dual histogram intervals (2-Interval), and Plinko quantile dotplot (Plinko), an animated design with a physical and probabilistic analogy. Our online experiment ran from Oct. 18, 2022, to Nov. 23, 2022, involving 1,327 participants from 15 states. We use Bayesian multilevel modeling and post-stratification to produce demographically-representative estimates of people's emotions, trust in forecasts, and political participation intention. We find that election forecast visualizations can heighten emotions, increase trust, and slightly affect people's intentions to participate in elections. 2-Interval shows the strongest effects across all measures; 1-Dotplot increases trust the most after elections. Both visualizations create emotional and trust gaps between different partisan identities, especially when a Republican candidate is predicted to win. Our qualitative analysis uncovers the complex political and social contexts of election forecast visualizations, showcasing that visualizations may provoke polarization. This intriguing interplay between visualization types, partisanship, and trust exemplifies the fundamental challenge of disentangling visualization from its context, underscoring a need for deeper investigation into the real-world impacts of visualizations. Our preprint and supplements are available at https://doi.org/osf.io/ajq8f.

My Model is Unfair, Do People Even Care? Visual Design Affects Trust and Perceived Bias in Machine Learning

Machine learning technology has become ubiquitous, but, unfortunately, often exhibits bias. As a consequence, disparate stakeholders need to interact with and make informed decisions about using machine learning models in everyday systems. Visualization technology can support stakeholders in understanding and evaluating trade-offs between, for example, accuracy and fairness of models. This paper aims to empirically answer "Can visualization design choices affect a stakeholder's perception of model bias, trust in a model, and willingness to adopt a model?" Through a series of controlled, crowd-sourced experiments with more than 1,500 participants, we identify a set of strategies people follow in deciding which models to trust. Our results show that men and women prioritize fairness and performance differently and that visual design choices significantly affect that prioritization. For example, women trust fairer models more often than men do, participants value fairness more when it is explained using text than as a bar chart, and being explicitly told a model is biased has a bigger impact than showing past biased performance. We test the generalizability of our results by comparing the effect of multiple textual and visual design choices and offer potential explanations of the cognitive mechanisms behind the difference in fairness perception and trust. Our research guides design considerations to support future work developing visualization systems for machine learning.