Comparing Bar Chart Authoring with Microsoft Excel and Tangible Tiles

Wun, Tiffany; Payne, Jennifer; Huron, Samuel; Carpendale, Sheelagh

doi:10.1111/cgf.12887

Cited by 22 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many participants also made use of the "Show me" pane to explore alternative visualization types, however, we observed this type of exploration much less frequently than in the classroom context of the pilot study. These notable differences in the sequence of actions confirm the results of previous studies that compared approaches of constructing bar charts using template-based digital tools and physical tiles [44].…”

Section: Data Attributes Identificationsupporting

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bottom-up vs. Top-down

Méndez

Hinrichs

Nacenta

2017

Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of tools that support fast-and-easy visualization creation by non-experts has made the benefits of InfoVis widely accessible. Key features of these tools include attribute-level operations, automated mappings, and visualization templates. However, these features shield people from lower-level visualization design steps, such as the specific mapping of data points to visuals. In contrast, recent research promotes constructive visualization where individual data units and visuals are directly manipulated. We present a qualitative study comparing people's visualization processes using two visualization tools: one promoting a top-down approach to visualization construction (Tableau Desktop) and one implementing a bottom-up constructive visualization approach (iVoLVER). Our results show how the two approaches influence: 1) the visualization process, 2) decisions on the visualization design, 3) the feeling of control and authorship, and 4) the willingness to explore alternative designs. We discuss the complex trade-offs between the two approaches and outline considerations for designing better visualization tools.

show abstract

Section: Data Attributes Identificationsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Wun et al [44] compared building bar charts using MS Excel vs. a set of physical tiles. They found that the building process was very different for the two tools.…”

Section: Previous Empirical Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bottom-up vs. Top-down

Méndez

Hinrichs

Nacenta

2017

Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies exist that have investigated the visualization process using different tools (e.g., [WPHC16,MHN17,GTS10,Hur14]). For example, Wu et al [WPHC16] compared the bar chart construction process between MS Excel and a set of physical tiles. Their findings showed that the distribution of time spent and sequence of actions taken to construct visualizations are different depending on the tool.…”

Section: Previous Studies Of Visualization Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their findings showed that the distribution of time spent and sequence of actions taken to construct visualizations are different depending on the tool. Unlike the study by Wu et al [WPHC16], we investigate trade-offs of visualization construction in digital visualization tools. In another study, Mendez et al…”

Section: Previous Studies Of Visualization Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the Manual View Specification and Visualization by Demonstration Paradigms for Visualization Construction

Saket

Endert

2019

Computer Graphics Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interactivity plays an important role in data visualization. Therefore, understanding how people create visualizations given different interaction paradigms provides empirical evidence to inform interaction design. We present a two‐phase study comparing people's visualization construction processes using two visualization tools: one implementing the manual view specification paradigm (Polestar) and another implementing visualization by demonstration (VisExemplar). Findings of our study indicate that the choice of interaction paradigm influences the visualization construction in terms of: 1) the overall effectiveness, 2) how participants phrase their goals, and 3) their perceived control and engagement. Based on our findings, we discuss trade‐offs and open challenges with these interaction paradigms.

show abstract

“…Additionally, the question arises in which ways physical and digital visualizations can be combined and complement each other. An example would be choosing to perceive data through a specific modality and switching in between tasks, depending on the comfort, speed or facility the data can be explored in the individual modality (e.g., Wun et al [2016]). …”

Section: Interacting With Physicalizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Potential of Physical Visualizations

Stusak¹

2015

Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of an external representation of abstract data is to provide insights and convey information about the structure of the underlying data, therefore helping people execute tasks and solve problems more effectively. Apart from the popular and well-studied digital visualization of abstract data there are other scarcely studied perceptual channels to represent data such as taste, sound or haptic. My thesis focuses on the latter and explores in which ways human knowledge and ability to sense and interact with the physical non-digital world can be used to enhance the way in which people analyze and explore abstract data. Emerging technological progress in digital fabrication allow an easy, fast and inexpensive production of physical objects. Machines such as laser cutters and 3D printers enable an accurate fabrication of physical visualizations with different form factors as well as materials. This creates, for the first time, the opportunity to study the potential of physical visualizations in a broad range.The thesis starts with the description of six prototypes of physical visualizations from static examples to digitally augmented variations to interactive artifacts. Based on these explorations, three promising areas of potential for physical visualizations were identified and investigated in more detail: perception & memorability, communication & collaboration, and motivation & self-reflection.The results of two studies in the area of information recall showed that participants who used a physical bar chart retained more information compared to the digital counterpart. Particularly facts about maximum and minimum values were be remembered more efficiently, when they were perceived from a physical visualization.Two explorative studies dealt with the potential of physical visualizations regarding communication and collaboration. The observations revealed the importance on the design and aesthetic of physical visualizations and indicated a great potential for their utilization by audiences with less interest in technology. The results also exposed the current limitations of physical visualizations, especially in contrast to their well-researched digital counterparts.In the area of motivation we present the design and evaluation of the Activity Sculptures project. We conducted a field study, in which we investigated physical visualizations of personal running activity. It was discovered that these sculptures generated curiosity and experimentation regarding the personal running behavior as well as evoked social dynamics such as discussions and competition.Based on the findings of the aforementioned studies this thesis concludes with two theoretical contributions on the design and potential of physical visualizations. On the one hand, it proposes a conceptual framework for material representations of personal data by describing a production and consumption lens. The goal is to encourage artists and designers working in the field of personal informatics to harness the interactive capabilities af...

show abstract

Comparing Bar Chart Authoring with Microsoft Excel and Tangible Tiles

Cited by 22 publications

References 24 publications

Bottom-up vs. Top-down

Bottom-up vs. Top-down

Investigating the Manual View Specification and Visualization by Demonstration Paradigms for Visualization Construction

Exploring the Potential of Physical Visualizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About