The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.06 - November/December (2009 vol.15)
pp: 961-968
Tim Dwyer , Microsoft Research
Bongshin Lee , Microsoft Research
Danyel Fisher , Microsoft Research
Kori Inkpen Quinn , Microsoft Research
Petra Isenberg , University of Calgary
George Robertson , Microsoft Research
Chris North , Virginia Tech
ABSTRACT
The research presented in this paper compares user-generated and automatic graph layouts. Following the methods suggested by van Ham et al. (2008), a group of users generated graph layouts using both multi-touch interaction on a tabletop display and mouse interaction on a desktop computer. Users were asked to optimize their layout for aesthetics and analytical tasks with a social network. We discuss characteristics of the user-generated layouts and interaction methods employed by users in this process. We then report on a web-based study to compare these layouts with the output of popular automatic layout algorithms. Our results demonstrate that the best of the user-generated layouts performed as well as or better than the physics-based layout. Orthogonal and circular automatic layouts were found to be considerably less effective than either the physics-based layout or the best of the user-generated layouts. We highlight several attributes of the various layouts that led to high accuracy and improved task completion time, as well as aspects in which traditional automatic layout methods were unsuccessful for our tasks.
INDEX TERMS
Graph layout, network layout, automatic layout algorithms, user-generated layout, graph-drawing aesthetics
CITATION
Tim Dwyer, Bongshin Lee, Danyel Fisher, Kori Inkpen Quinn, Petra Isenberg, George Robertson, Chris North, "A Comparison of User-Generated and Automatic Graph Layouts", IEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics, vol.15, no. 6, pp. 961-968, November/December 2009, doi:10.1109/TVCG.2009.109
REFERENCES
[1] I. Borg, P. J. F. Groenen, Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications. 2nd Ed. Springer 2005.
[2] G. Di Battista, P. Eades, R. Tamassia, and I. Tollis, Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs. Pearson 1998.
[3] U. Doğrusöz, B. Madden, and P. Madden, Circular layout in the Graph Layout Toolkit. Proc. Graph Drawing (GD '96), LNCS 1190, pp. 92– 100. Springer 1996.
[4] P. Dourish, Where The Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press 2001.
[5] T. Dwyer, K. Marriott, and M. Wybrow, Dunnart: A Constraint-based Network Diagram Authoring Tool. Proc. Graph Drawing (GD'08), LNCS 5417, pp. 420-431. Springer 2009.
[6] M. Eiglsperger, S. Fekete, and G. W. Klau, Orthogonal Graph Drawing. In Drawing Graphs: Methods and Models, Kaufmann and Wagner (Eds.) LNCS 2025, pp. 121-171. Springer 2001.
[7] R. Fleischer and C. Hirsch, Graph Drawing and Its Applications. In Drawing Graphs: Methods and Models, Kaufmann and Wagner (Eds.) LNCS 2025, pp. 1-22. Springer 2001.
[8] E. Gansner, Y. Koren, and S. North, Graph Drawing by Stress Majorization. Proc. Graph Drawing (GD'04), LNCS 3383, pp. 239– 250, Springer 2004.
[9] M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, Crossing number is NP-complete. SIAM Journal on Algebraic and Discrete Methods, 4: 312-316, 1983.
[10] F. van Ham and B. Rogowitz, Perceptual Organization in User-Generated Graph Layouts. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 14 (6): 1333-1339, 2008.
[11] W. Huang, S. Hong, and P. Eades, Layout Effects on Sociogram Perception. Proc. Graph Drawing (GD'05), LNCS 3843, pp. 262-273. Springer 2006.
[12] C. McGrath, J. Blythe, and D. Krackhardt, The effect of spatial arrangement on judgements and errors in interpreting graphs. Social Networks, 19: 223-242. Elsevier 1997.
[13] D. A. Norman, Emotional Design: Why We Love (Or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books 2004.
[14] C. North, T. Dwyer, B. Lee, D. Fisher, P. Isenberg, K. Inkpen Quinn, and G. Robertson, Understanding Multitouch Manipulation for Surface Computing. Interact 2009. To appear: Springer 2009.
[15] H. C. Purchase, D. Carrington, and H. Allder, Empirical Evaluation of Aesthetics-based Graph Layout. Empirical Software Engineering, 7 (3): 233-255, Kluwer 2002.
[16] H. C. Purchase, E. Hoggan, and C. Görg, How Important is the "Mental Map"? − An Empirical investigation of a Dynamic Graph Layout Algorithm. Proc. Graph Drawing (GD'06), LNCS 4372, pp. 262-273. Springer 2007.
[17] H. C. Purchase, M. McGill, L. Colpoys, and D. Carrington, Graph Drawing Aesthetics and the Comprehension of UML Class Diagrams: An Empirical Study. Proc. Asia-Pacific Symp. on Information Visualization, CRPIT 9, pp. 129-137. ACS 2001.
[18] H. C. Purchase and A. Samra., Extremes Are Better: Investigating Mental Map Preservation in Dynamic Graphs. Proc. Diagrammatic Representation and Inference (Diagrams'08), LNAI 5223, pp. 60-73. Springer 2008.
[19] P. Saffrey and H. Purchase. The "Mental Map" versus "Static Aesthetic" Compromise in Dynamic Graphs: A User Study. In Proc. 9th Australasian User Interface Conference (AUIC2008), CRPIT 76, pp. 85-93. ACS 2008.
15 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool