skip to main content
10.1145/3025453.3026024acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Evaluating Perceptually Complementary Views for Network Exploration Tasks

Published:02 May 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

We explore the relative merits of matrix, node-link and combined side-by-side views for the visualisation of weighted networks with three controlled studies: (1) finding the most effective visual encoding for weighted edges in matrix representations; (2) comparing matrix, node-link and combined views for static weighted networks; and (3) comparing MatrixWave, Sankey and combined views of both for event-sequence data. Our studies underline that node-link and matrix views are suited to different analysis tasks. For the combined view, our studies show that there is a perceptually complementary effect in terms of improved accuracy for some tasks, but that there is a cost in terms of longer completion time than the faster of the two techniques alone. Eye-movement data shows that for many tasks participants strongly favour one of the two views, after trying both in the training phase.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn4705p.mp4

mp4

1.7 MB

p1397-chang.mp4

mp4

207.9 MB

References

  1. Basak Alper, Benjamin Bach, Nathalie Henry Riche, Tobias Isenberg, and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2013. Weighted graph comparison techniques for brain connectivity analysis. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). ACM, 483--492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Albert-László Barabási and Réka Albert. 1999. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286, 5439 (1999), 509--512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Jacques Bertin. 1973. Sémiologie graphique: Les diagrammes-Les réseaux-Les cartes. (1973).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Anastasia Bezerianos, Pierre Dragicevic, Jean-Daniel Fekete, Juhee Bae, and Ben Watson. 2010. Geneaquilts: A system for exploring large genealogies. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16, 6 (2010), 1073--1081.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Michael Bostock. 2012. D3. js. Data Driven Documents (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Stuart K Card, Jock D Mackinlay, and Ben Shneiderman. 1999. Readings in information visualization: using vision to think. (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Christopher Collins and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2007. VisLink: Revealing relationships amongst visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 13, 6 (2007), 1192--1199. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Antoine de Falguerolles, Felix Friedrich, Günther Sawitzki, and StatLab Heidelberg. 1997. A tribute to J. Bertin's graphical data analysis. SoftStat 97 (1997), 11--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Tim Dwyer. 2016. Constraint-Based Layout in the Browser: WebCoLa. http://marvl.infotech.monash.edu/webcola/. (2016). Accessed: 2016-08-08.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Mohammad Ghoniem, J-D Fekete, and Philippe Castagliola. 2004. A comparison of the readability of graphs using node-link and matrix-based representations. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2004 (InfoVis). IEEE, 17--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Nathalie Henry and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2006. MatrixExplorer: a dual-representation system to explore social networks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 12, 5 (2006), 677--684. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Nathalie Henry and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2007. Matlink: Enhanced matrix visualization for analyzing social networks. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 288--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Nathalie Henry, Jean-Daniel Fekete, and Michael J McGuffin. 2007. NodeTrix: a hybrid visualization of social networks. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 13, 6 (2007), 1302--1309. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. René Keller, Claudia M Eckert, and P John Clarkson. 2006. Matrices or node-link diagrams: which visual representation is better for visualising connectivity models' Information Visualization 5, 1 (2006), 62--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Miguel Nacenta, Uta Hinrichs, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2012. FatFonts: combining the symbolic and visual aspects of numbers. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. ACM, 407--414. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Chris North and Ben Shneiderman. 1997. A taxonomy of multiple window coordination. (1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Lucy Nowell, Robert Schulman, and Deborah Hix. 2002. Graphical encoding for information visualization: an empirical study. In Information Visualization, 2002. INFOVIS 2002. IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 43--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Charles Perin, Pierre Dragicevic, and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2014. Revisiting bertin matrices: New interactions for crafting tabular visualizations. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 20, 12 (2014), 2082--2091. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Patrick Riehmann, Manfred Hanfler, and Bernd Froehlich. 2005. Interactive sankey diagrams. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. (InfoVis). IEEE, 233--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Jonathan C Roberts. 2007. State of the art: Coordinated & multiple views in exploratory visualization. In Proceedings of International Conference on Coordinated and Multiple Views in Exploratory Visualization, 2007. IEEE, 61--71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Stanley S Stevens. 1971. Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological review 78, 5 (1971), 426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Matthew Tobiasz, Petra Isenberg, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2009. Lark: Coordinating co-located collaboration with information visualization. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 15, 6 (2009), 1065--1072. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Michelle Q. Wang Baldonado, Allison Woodruff, and Allan Kuchinsky. 2000. Guidelines for Using Multiple Views in Information Visualization. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI '00). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 110--119. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/345513.345271 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Krist Wongsuphasawat and David Gotz. 2012. Exploring flow, factors, and outcomes of temporal event sequences with the outflow visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 12 (2012), 2659--2668. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jiaje Zhang and Donald A Norman. 1994. Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive science 18, 1 (1994), 87--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Jian Zhao, Zhicheng Liu, Mira Dontcheva, Aaron Hertzmann, and Alan Wilson. 2015. MatrixWave: Visual comparison of event sequence data. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 259--268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating Perceptually Complementary Views for Network Exploration Tasks

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2017
      7138 pages
      ISBN:9781450346559
      DOI:10.1145/3025453

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 May 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate600of2,400submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader