The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.12 - Dec. (2011 vol.17)
pp: 2508-2517
Jagoda Walny , University of Calgary
Sheelagh Carpendale , University of Calgary / Microsoft Research
Nathalie Henry Riche , Microsoft Research
Gina Venolia , Microsoft Research
Philip Fawcett , Microsoft Research
ABSTRACT
While it is still most common for information visualization researchers to develop new visualizations from a data- or taskdriven perspective, there is growing interest in understanding the types of visualizations people create by themselves for personal use. As part of this recent direction, we have studied a large collection of whiteboards in a research institution, where people make active use of combinations of words, diagrams and various types of visuals to help them further their thought processes. Our goal is to arrive at a better understanding of the nature of visuals that are created spontaneously during brainstorming, thinking, communicating, and general problem solving on whiteboards. We use the qualitative approaches of open coding, interviewing, and affinity diagramming to explore the use of recognizable and novel visuals, and the interplay between visualization and diagrammatic elements with words, numbers and labels. We discuss the potential implications of our findings on information visualization design.
INDEX TERMS
Visualization, diagrams, whiteboards, observational study.
CITATION
Jagoda Walny, Sheelagh Carpendale, Nathalie Henry Riche, Gina Venolia, Philip Fawcett, "Visual Thinking In Action: Visualizations As Used On Whiteboards", IEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics, vol.17, no. 12, pp. 2508-2517, Dec. 2011, doi:10.1109/TVCG.2011.251
REFERENCES
[1] A. Adler and R. Davis, Speech and sketching: An empirical study of multimodal interaction. In Proceedings of the 4th Eurographics workshop on Sketch-based interfaces and modeling, pages 83–90. ACM, 2007.
[2] R. Amar and J. Stasko, A knowledge task-based framework for design and evaluation of information visualizations. In IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, pages 143–150. Citeseer, 2004.
[3] C. Andrews, A. Endert, and C. North, Space to think: large high-resolution displays for sensemaking. In Proceedings of CHI 2010, pages 55–64. ACM, 2010.
[4] R. Arnheim, A plea for visual thinking. Critical Inquiry, 6 (3): 489–497, 1980.
[5] A. Baddeley, Recent developments in working memory. Current opinion in neurobiology, 8 (2): 234–238, 1998.
[6] E. A. Bier, M. C. Stone, K. Pier, W. Buxton, and T. D. DeRose, Tool-glass and magic lenses: the see-through interface. In Proceedings of the 20th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, page 80. ACM, 1993.
[7] P. Brandl, M. Haller, J. Oberngruber, and C. Schafleitner, Bridging the gap between real printouts and digital whiteboard. In Proceedings of AVI 2008, pages 31–38. ACM, 2008.
[8] S. Branham, G. Golovchinsky, S. Carter, and J. T. Biehl, Let's go from the whiteboard: supporting transitions in work through whiteboard capture and reuse. In Proceedings of CHI 2010, pages 75–84. ACM, 2010.
[9] B. Buxton, The Anatomy of Sketching. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 2007.
[10] S. K. Card, J. D. Mackinlay, and B. Shneiderman, Readings in information visualization: using vision to think. Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.
[11] M. S. T. Carpendale and C. Montagnese, A framework for unifying presentation space. In Proceedings of UIST 2001, pages 61–70. ACM, 2001.
[12] S. Carpendale, Evaluating information visualizations. Information Visualization, pages 19–45, 2008.
[13] C. F. Chabris and S. M. Kosslyn, Representational correspondence as a basic principle of diagram design. Knowledge and Information Visualization, pages 36–57, 2005.
[14] W. O. Chao, T. Munzner, and M. van de Panne, Rapid pen-centric authoring of improvisational visualizations with napkinvis. Poster, IEEE VisWeek 2010, October 2010.
[15] M. Cherubini, G. Venolia, R. DeLine, and A. J. Ko, Let's go to the whiteboard: how and why software developers use drawings. In Proceedings of CHI 2007, page 566. ACM, 2007.
[16] H. H. Clark and S. E. Brennan, Grounding in communication. Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 13 (1991): 127–149, 1991.
[17] R. Dixon and T. Sherwood, Whiteboards that compute: A workload analysis. In 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization, pages 69–78,10 2008.
[18] T. Dwyer, Y. Koren, and K. Marriott, Ipsep-cola: An incremental procedure for separation constraint layout of graphs. TVCG 2006, 12 (5): 821– 828, 2006.
[19] G. Ellis and A. Dix, A taxonomy of clutter reduction for information visualisation. IEEE TVCG, pages 1216–1223, 2007.
[20] G. W. Furnas, Generalized fisheye views. Proceedings of CHI 1986, 17 (4), 1986.
[21] L. Grammel, M. Tory, and M. A. Storey, How information visualization novices construct visualizations. IEEE TVCG, 17 (6), 2010.
[22] J. Heer and M. Bostock, Declarative language design for interactive visualization. IEEE TVCG, 16 (6): 1149–56, 2010.
[23] B. Johnson and B. Shneiderman, Tree-maps: A space-filling approach to the visualization of hierarchical information structures. In Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Visualization'91, pages 284–291. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1991.
[24] W. Ju, B. A. Lee, and S. R. Klemmer, Range: exploring implicit interaction through electronic whiteboard design. In Proceedings of CSCW 2008, pages 17–26. ACM, 2008.
[25] W. Ju, L. Neeley, T. Winograd, and L. Leifer, Thinking with erasable ink: Ad-hoc whiteboard use in collaborative design. Technical report, CDR, Stanford University.
[26] E. C. Kaiser, Using redundant speech and handwriting for learning new vocabulary and understanding abbreviations. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Multimodal interfaces, page 356. ACM, 2006.
[27] S. R. Klemmer, M. W. Newman, R. Farrell, M. Bilezikjian, and J. A. Landay, The designers' outpost: a tangible interface for collaborative web site. In Proceedings UIST 2001, pages 1–10. ACM, 2001.
[28] R. Kruger, S. Carpendale, S. D. Scott, and S. Greenberg, Roles of orientation in tabletop collaboration: Comprehension, coordination and communication. Proceedings of CSCW 2004, 13 (5): 501–537, 2004.
[29] R. Kruger, S. Carpendale, S. D. Scott, and A. Tang, Fluid integration of rotation and translation. In Proceedings of CHI 2005, pages 601–610. ACM, 2005.
[30] J. A. Landay, Silk: sketching interfaces like krazy. In Proceedings of CHI 1996, pages 398–399. ACM, 1996.
[31] J. Leitner, C. Rendl, F. Perteneder, A. Gokcezade, T. Seifried, M. Haller, R. Zeleznik, and A. Bragdon, Nice formula editor. In ACM SIGGRAPH, pages 26–30, 2010.
[32] R. H. Logie, Visuo-spatial working memory. Psychology Press, 1995.
[33] B. Moggridge, Designing Interactions. The MIT Press, 10 2007.
[34] T. P. Moran and W. van Melle, Tivoli: integrating structured domain objects into a freeform whiteboard environment. In CHI 2000 extended abstracts, page 21. ACM, 2000.
[35] E. D. Mynatt, The writing on the wall. In Proceedings of the 7th IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 1999.
[36] E. I. Mynatt and T. Edwards, Flatland: New dimensions in office whiteboards. In Proceedings of CHI 1999, pages 346–353, 1999.
[37] J. Olson, L. Covi, E. Rooco, W. Miller, and P. Allie, A room of your own: What would it take to help remote groups work as well as collocated groups? Proceedings of CHI 1998, pages 279–280, 1998.
[38] C. Plaisant, The challenge of information visualization evaluation. In Proceedings of AVI 2004, pages 109–116. ACM, 2004.
[39] C. Plaisant, J. Grosjean, and B. B. Bederson, Spacetree: Supporting exploration in large node link tree, design evolution and empirical evaluation. The craft of information visualization: readings and reflections, page 287, 2003.
[40] G. G. Robertson and J. D. Mackinlay, The document lens. In Proceedings of UIST 1993, pages 101–108. ACM, 1993.
[41] G. G. Robertson, J. D. Mackinlay, and S. K. Card, Cone trees: animated 3d visualizations of hierarchical information. In Proceedings of CHI 1991, page 194. ACM, 1991.
[42] E. Segel and J. Heer, Narrative visualization: telling stories with data. IEEE TVCG, 16 (6): 1139–48, 2010.
[43] B. Shneiderman, The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In Proceedings of IEEE Visual Languages 1996 Proceedings, pages 336–343, 1996.
[44] A. L. Strauss and J. Corbin, Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage publications Newbury Park, CA, 1990.
[45] A. Tang, J. Lanir, S. Greenberg, and S. Fels, Supporting transitions in work: informing large display application design by understanding whiteboard use. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group work, pages 149–158. ACM, 2009.
[46] J. Tang, Findings from observational studies of collaborative work. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies., (34): 143–160, 1991.
[47] S. Vajda, T. Plötz, and G. A. Fink, Layout analysis for camera-based whiteboard notes. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 15 (18): 3307– 3324, 2009.
[48] F. van Ham and B. Rogowitz, Perceptual organization in user-generated graph layouts. IEEE TVCG, 14 (6): 1333–1339, 2008.
[49] F. B. Viegas, M. Wattenberg, M. McKeon, F. van Ham, and J. Kriss, Harry potter and the meat-filled freezer: A case study of spontaneous usage of visualization tools. In Proceedings of HICSS 2008, pages 159–159, 2008.
[50] C. Ware and M. Lewis, The dragmag image magnifier. In Proceedings of CHI 1995, pages 407–408. ACM, 1995.
[51] M. Wu and R. Balakrishnan, Multi-finger and whole hand gestural interaction techniques for multi-user tabletop displays. In Proceedings of UIST 2003, pages 193–202. ACM, 2003.
18 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool