This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
Overview Use in Multiple Visual Information Resolution Interfaces
November/December 2007 (vol. 13 no. 6)
pp. 1278-1285
Tamara Munzner, IEEE Computer Society
Robert Kincaid, IEEE Computer Society
In interfaces that provide multiple visual information resolutions (VIR), low-VIR overviews typically sacrifice visual details for display capacity, with the assumption that users can select regions of interest to examine at higher VIRs. Designers can create low-VIRs based on multi-level structure inherent in the data, but have little guidance with single-level data. To better guide design tradeoff between display capacity and visual target perceivability, we looked at overview use in two multiple-VIR interfaces with high-VIR displays either embedded within, or separate from, the overviews. We studied two visual requirements for effective overview and found that participants would reliably use the low-VIR overviews only when the visual targets were simple and had small visual spans. Otherwise, at least 20% chose to use the high-VIR view exclusively. Surprisingly, neither of the multiple-VIR interfaces provided performance benefits when compared to using the high-VIR view alone. However, we did observe benefits in providing side-by-side comparisons for target matching. We conjecture that the high cognitive load of multiple-VIR interface interactions, whether real or perceived, is a more considerable barrier to their effective use than was previously considered.

[1] R. Amar, J. Eagan, and J. Stasko, Low-level components of analytic activity in information visualization. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis'05), pages 111–117, 2005.
[2] P. Baudisch, B. Lee, and L. Hanna, Fishnet, a fisheye web browser with search term popouts: a comparative evaluation with overview and linear view. In Proc. ACM Advanced Visual Interface (AVI 2004), pages 133–140, 2004.
[3] C. G. Healey and J. T. Enns, Large datasets at a glance: Combining textures and colors in scientific visualization. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG), 5 (2): 145–167, 1999.
[4] K. Hornbaek, B. Bederson, and C. Plaisant, Navigation patterns and usability of zoomable user interfaces with and without an overview. ACM Trans. on Computer-Human Interaction (ToCHI), 9 (4): 362–389, 2002.
[5] K. Hornbaek, E. Frokjaer, and C. Plaisant, Reading patterns and usability in visualization of electronic documents. ACM Trans. on Computer-Human Interaction (ToCHI), 10 (2): 119–149, 2003.
[6] D. E. Huber and C. G. Healey, Visualizing data with motion. In Proc. IEEE Visualization 2005, pages 527–534, 2005.
[7] R. Kincaid and H. Lam, Line Graph Explorer: Scalable display of line graphs using focus+context. In Proc. ACM Advanced Visual Interface (AVI 2006), pages 404–411, 2006.
[8] F. Landragin, N. Bellalem, and L. Romary, Visual salience and perceptual grouping in multimodal interactivity. In Proc. International Workshop on Information Presentation and Natural Mulimodal Dialogue (IPNMD), pages 151–155, 2001.
[9] D. Nekrasovski, D. Bodnar, J. McGrenere, T. Munzner, and F. Guimbretire, An evaluation of pan and zoom and rubber sheet navigation. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'06), pages 11–20, 2006.
[10] C. North and B. Shneiderman, Snap-together visualization: can users construct and operate coordinated visualizations. Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53 (5): 715–739, 2000.
[11] S. E. Palmer, Vision Science. Bradford, Cambridge MA, 1999.
[12] R. Rao and S. Card, Table Lens: Merging graphical and symbolic representations in an interactive focus plus context visualization for tabular information. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'94), pages 318–322, 1994.
[13] R. Rosenholtz, Y. Li, J. Mansfield, and Z. Jin, Feature congestion: A measure of display clutter. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'05), pages 761–770, 2005.
[14] S. F. Roth and J. Mattis, Data characterization for intelligent graphics presentation. In Proc. ACM SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'90), pages 193–200, 1990.
[15] D. Schaffer, Z. Zuo, S. Greenberg, L. Bartram, J. Dill, S. Dubs, and M. Roseman, Navigating hierarchically clustered networks through fish-eye and full-zoom methods. ACM Trans. on Computer-Human Interaction (ToCHI), 3 (2): 162–188, Mar. 1996.
[16] M. Tory and T. Möoller, Rethinking visualization: A high-level taxonomy. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (Info-Vis'04), pages 151–158, 2004.
[17] A. Treisman, Preattentive processing in vision. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 31 (2): 156–177, 1985.
[18] T. S. Tullis, A computer-based tool for evaluating alphanumeric displays. In B. Shackel, editor, Human-Computer Interaction: INTERACT '84, pages 719–723. Elsevier Science, 1985.
[19] C. Ware, Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann, 2nd edition, 2004.
[20] W. Wehrend and C. Lewis, A problem-oriented classification of visualization techniques. In Proc. IEEE Visualization (Vis'90), pages 139–143, 1990.
[21] M. Yeh and C. D. Wickens, Attentional filtering in the design of electronic map displays: A comparison of color-coding, intensity coding, and decluttering techniques. The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43 (4): 543–562, 2001.

Index Terms:
Multiple resolutions, overview use, user study.
Heidi Lam, Tamara Munzner, Robert Kincaid, "Overview Use in Multiple Visual Information Resolution Interfaces," IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1278-1285, Nov.-Dec. 2007, doi:10.1109/TVCG.2007.70583
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.