Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Discovering the Unfindable: The Tension Between Findability and Discoverability in a Bookshop Designed for Serendipity Read chapter Read first chapter

2019 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Benefits and Trade-Offs of Different Model Representations in Decision Support Systems for Non-expert Users

Authors : Francisco Gutiérrez, Xavier Ochoa, Karsten Seipp, Tom Broos, Katrien Verbert

Published in: Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2019

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Researchers have reported a lack of experience and low graph literacy as significant problems when making visual analytics applications available to a general audience. Therefore, it is fundamental to understand the strengths and weaknesses of different visualizations in the decision-making process. This paper explores the benefits and challenges of an intuitive, a compact, and a detailed visualization for supporting non-expert users. Using objective and subjective means proposed by earlier work, we determine the benefits and trade-offs of these visualizations for different task complexity levels. We found that while an intuitive visualization can be a good choice for easy level and medium level tasks, hard level tasks are best supported with a richer, yet visually more demanding visualization.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter A Formative Study of Interactive Bias Metrics in Visual Analytics Using Anchoring Bias
next chapter Customizing Websites Through Automatic Web Search
Footnotes
Literature
1.
Abidi, S.S.R.: Knowledge management in healthcare: towards knowledge-driven decision-support services. Int. J. Med. Inform. 63(1), 5–18 (2001)CrossRef
2.
Al-Kassab, J., Ouertani, Z.M., Schiuma, G., Neely, A.: Information visualization to support management decisions. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 13(02), 407–428 (2014)CrossRef
3.
Aliev, R.A., Huseynov, O.H.: Fuzzy geometry-based decision making with unprecisiated visual information. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 13(5), 1051–1073 (2014)CrossRef
4.
Andrienko, G., et al.: Geovisual analytics for spatial decision support: setting the research agenda. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 21(8), 839–857 (2007)CrossRef
5.
Basole, R.C., Qamar, A., Park, H., Paredis, C.J., McGinnis, L.F.: Visual analytics for early-phase complex engineered system design support. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 35(2), 41–51 (2015)CrossRef
6.
Ben-Assuli, O.: Assessing the perception of information components in financial decision support systems. Decis. Support Syst. 54(1), 795–802 (2012)CrossRef
7.
Bollen, J., Mao, H., Zeng, X.: Twitter mood predicts the stock market. J. Comput. Sci. 2(1), 1–8 (2011)CrossRef
8.
Bonada, S., Veras, R., Collins, C.: Personalized views for immersive analytics. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Companion on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces, ISS Companion 2016, pp. 83–89. ACM, New York (2016)
9.
Boy, J., Rensink, R.A., Bertini, E., Fekete, J.D.: A principled way of assessing visualization literacy. IEEE Trans. Visual Comput. Graph. 20(12), 1963–1972 (2014)CrossRef
10.
Charleer, S., Gutiérrez Hernández, F., Verbert, K.: Supporting job mediator and job seeker through an actionable dashboard. In: Proceedings of the 24th IUI Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM (2018)
11.
12.
Frøkjær, E., Hertzum, M., Hornbæk, K.: Measuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 345–352. ACM (2000)
13.
Gettinger, J., Kiesling, E., Stummer, C., Vetschera, R.: A comparison of representations for discrete multi-criteria decision problems. Decis. Support Syst. 54(2), 976–985 (2013)CrossRef
14.
Gettinger, J., Koeszegi, S.T., Schoop, M.: Shall we dance? - The effect of information presentations on negotiation processes and outcomes. Decis. Support Syst. 53(1), 161–174 (2012)CrossRef
15.
Goda, K., Song, J.: Uncertainty modeling and visualization for tsunami hazard and risk mapping: a case study for the 2011 tohoku earthquake. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk Assess. 30(8), 2271–2285 (2016)CrossRef
16.
Greis, M., Ohler, T., Henze, N., Schmidt, A.: Investigating representation alternatives for communicating uncertainty to non-experts. In: Abascal, J., Barbosa, S., Fetter, M., Gross, T., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9299, pp. 256–263. Springer, Cham (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-319-22723-8_​21CrossRef
17.
18.
Hao, M., et al.: Visual sentiment analysis on Twitter data streams. In: 2011 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST), pp. 277–278. IEEE (2011)
19.
Harold, J., Lorenzoni, I., Shipley, T.F., Coventry, K.R.: Cognitive and psychological science insights to improve climate change data visualization. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6(12), 1080 (2016)CrossRef
20.
He, C., Parra, D., Verbert, K.: Interactive recommender systems: a survey of the state of the art and future research challenges and opportunities. Expert Syst. Appl. 56, 9–27 (2016)CrossRef
21.
Heer, J., Bostock, M.: Crowdsourcing graphical perception: using mechanical turk to assess visualization design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 203–212. ACM (2010)
22.
Höferlin, M., Höferlin, B., Weiskopf, D., Heidemann, G.: Uncertainty-aware video visual analytics of tracked moving objects. J. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2011(2), 87–117 (2011)
23.
Huang, D., et al.: Personal visualization and personal visual analytics. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 21(3), 420–433 (2015)CrossRef
24.
Hullman, J., Resnick, P., Adar, E.: Hypothetical outcome plots outperform error bars and violin plots for inferences about reliability of variable ordering. PLoS ONE 10(11), e0142444 (2015)CrossRef
25.
Ibrekk, H., Morgan, M.G.: Graphical communication of uncertain quantities to nontechnical people. Risk Anal. 7(4), 519–529 (1987)CrossRef
26.
John, M., Koch, S., Heimerl, F., Müller, A., Ertl, T., Kuhn, J.: Interactive visual analysis of German poetics. In: Digital Humanities 2015 Book of Abstracts (2015)
27.
Johnson, C.R., Sanderson, A.R.: A next step: visualizing errors and uncertainty. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 23(5), 6–10 (2003)CrossRef
28.
Kay, M., Heer, J.: Beyond Weber’s Law: a second look at ranking visualizations of correlation. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 22(1), 469–478 (2016)CrossRef
29.
Kay, M., Kola, T., Hullman, J.R., Munson, S.A.: When (ish) is My Bus? User-centered visualizations of uncertainty in everyday, mobile predictive systems. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 2016, pp. 5092–5103 (2016)
30.
Kay, M., Morris, D., Kientz, J.A., et al.: There’s no such thing as gaining a pound: reconsidering the bathroom scale user interface. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 401–410. ACM (2013)
31.
Kay, M., Patel, S.N., Kientz, J.A.: How good is 85%?: A survey tool to connect classifier evaluation to acceptability of accuracy. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 347–356. ACM (2015)
32.
33.
Keim, D.A., Mansmann, F., Thomas, J.: Visual analytics: how much visualization and how much analytics? SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 11(2), 5–8 (2010)CrossRef
34.
Kim, Y.S., Reinecke, K., Hullman, J.: Explaining the gap: visualizing one’s predictions improves recall and comprehension of data. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2017, pp. 1375–1386. ACM, New York (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​3025453.​3025592
35.
Kwon, B.C., Fisher, B., Yi, J.S.: Visual analytic roadblocks for novice investigators. In: VAST 2011 - IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology 2011, Proceedings, pp. 3–11. IEEE (2011)
36.
Lee, B., Robertson, G.G., Czerwinski, M., Parr, C.S.: CandidTree: visualizing structural uncertainty in similar hierarchies. Inf. Vis. 6(3), 233–246 (2007)CrossRef
37.
Lee, S., Kim, S.H., Hung, Y.H., Lam, H., Kang, Y.A., Yi, J.S.: How do people make sense of unfamiliar visualizations?: A grounded model of novice’s information visualization sense making. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 22(1), 499–508 (2016)CrossRef
38.
Lee, S., Kim, S.H., Kwon, B.C.: VLAT: development of a visualization literacy assessment test. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graphics 23(1), 551–560 (2017)CrossRef
39.
MacEachren, A.M.A., et al.: Visualizing geospatial information uncertainty: what we know and what we need to know. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 32(3), 139–160 (2005)CrossRef
40.
McKenzie, G., Hegarty, M., Barrett, T., Goodchild, M.: Assessing the effectiveness of different visualizations for judgments of positional uncertainty. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 30(2), 221–239 (2016)CrossRef
41.
Ming, Y., Qu, H., Bertini, E.: RuleMatrix: visualizing and understanding classifiers with rules. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 25(1), 342–352 (2019)CrossRef
42.
Park, H., Basole, R.C.: Bicentric diagrams: design and applications of a graph-based relational set visualization technique. Decis. Support Syst. 84, 64–77 (2016)CrossRef
43.
Park, H., Bellamy, M.A., Basole, R.C.: Visual analytics for supply network management: system design and evaluation. Decis. Support Syst. 91, 89–102 (2016)CrossRef
44.
45.
Ruginski, I.T., et al.: Non-expert interpretations of hurricane forecast uncertainty visualizations. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 16(2), 154–172 (2016)CrossRef
46.
Sacha, D., Senaratne, H., Kwon, B.C., Ellis, G., Keim, D.A.: The role of uncertainty, awareness, and trust in visual analytics. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 22(1), 240–249 (2016)CrossRef
47.
Sarkar, A., Blackwell, A.F., Jamnik, M., Spott, M.: Interaction with uncertainty in visualisations. In: Bertini, E., Kennedy, J., Puppo, E. (eds.) Eurographics Conference on Visualization (EuroVis) - Short Papers. The Eurographics Association (2015)
48.
Seipp, K., Gutiérrez, F., Ochoa, X., Verbert, K.: Towards a visual guide for communicating uncertainty in visual analytics. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 50, 1–18 (2019)CrossRef
49.
Senaratne, H., et al.: Urban mobility analysis with mobile network data: a visual analytics approach. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 19(5), 1537–1546 (2018)CrossRef
50.
Senaratne, H., Reusser, D., Schreck, T.: Usability of uncertainty visualisation methods: a comparison between different user groups (2013)
51.
Shim, J.P., Warkentin, M., Courtney, J.F., Power, D.J., Sharda, R., Carlsson, C.: Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decis. Support Syst. 33(2), 111–126 (2002)CrossRef
52.
Shneiderman, B.: The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, VL 1996, pp. 336–343. IEEE Computer Society (1996)
53.
Skeels, M., Lee, B., Smith, G., Robertson, G.G.: Revealing uncertainty for information visualization. Inf. Vis. 9(1), 70–81 (2010)CrossRef
54.
Smedt, T.D., Daelemans, W.: Pattern for Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 13(Jun), 2063–2067 (2012)MATH
55.
Sparrow, J.A.: Graphical displays in information systems: some data properties influencing the effectiveness of alternative forms. Behav. Inf. Technol. 8(1), 43–56 (1989)CrossRef
56.
Speier, C.: The influence of information presentation formats on complex task decision-making performance. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 64(11), 115–1131 (2006)CrossRef
57.
Speier, C., Morris, M.G.: The influence of query interface design on decision-making performance. MIS Q. 27(3), 397–423 (2003)CrossRef
58.
Tak, S., Toet, A., van Erp, J.: The perception of visual uncertainty representation by non-experts. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 20(6), 935–943 (2014)CrossRef
59.
Taylor, A.L., Dessai, S., de Bruin, W.B.: Communicating uncertainty in seasonal and interannual climate forecasts in Europe. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 373(2055), 20140454 (2015)CrossRef
60.
Thomas, J.J., Cook, K.A.: Illuminating the path: the R&D agenda for visual analytics national visualization and analytics center. In: National Visualization and Analytics Center-US. Department of Homeland Security (2005)
61.
Thomas, J., Kielman, J.: Challenges for visual analytics. Inf. Vis. 8(4), 309–314 (2009)CrossRef
62.
Verbert, K., Parra, D., Brusilovsky, P.: Agents vs. users: visual recommendation of research talks with multiple dimension of relevance. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 6, 1–46 (2016)CrossRef
63.
Wang, J., Ipeirotis, P.G., Provost, F.: A framework for quality assurance in crowdsourcing, p. 38 (2013)
64.
Wongsuphasawat, K., Moritz, D., Anand, A., Mackinlay, J., Howe, B., Heer, J.: Voyager: exploratory analysis via faceted browsing of visualization recommendations. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 22(1), 649–658 (2016)CrossRef
65.
Yang, H., Li, Y., Zhou, M.X.: Understand users’ comprehension and preferences for composing information visualizations. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 21(1), 1–30 (2014)CrossRef
66.
Yi, J.S., ah Kang, Y., Stasko, J.T., Jacko, J.A.: Toward a deeper understanding of the role of interaction in information visualization. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 13(6), 1224–1231 (2007)CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Benefits and Trade-Offs of Different Model Representations in Decision Support Systems for Non-expert Users
Authors
Francisco Gutiérrez
Xavier Ochoa
Karsten Seipp
Tom Broos
Katrien Verbert
Copyright Year
2019
Book
Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2019

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29383-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-29384-0

Copyright Year: 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29384-0_35