The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.12 - Dec. (2012 vol.18)
pp: 2411-2420
Steven R. Gomez , Brown University
Radu Jianu , Brown University
Caroline Ziemkiewicz , Brown University
Hua Guo , Brown University
David Laidlaw , Brown University
We present an ethnographic study of design differences in visual presentations between academic disciplines. Characterizing design conventions between users and data domains is an important step in developing hypotheses, tools, and design guidelines for information visualization. In this paper, disciplines are compared at a coarse scale between four groups of fields: social, natural, and formal sciences; and the humanities. Two commonplace presentation types were analyzed: electronic slideshows and whiteboard “chalk talks”. We found design differences in slideshows using two methods - coding and comparing manually-selected features, like charts and diagrams, and an image-based analysis using PCA called eigenslides. In whiteboard talks with controlled topics, we observed design behaviors, including using representations and formalisms from a participant’s own discipline, that suggest authors might benefit from novel assistive tools for designing presentations. Based on these findings, we discuss opportunities for visualization ethnography and human-centered authoring tools for visual information.
Visualization, Principal component analysis, Semantics, Educational institutions, Encoding, Buildings, Cognitive science, visual analysis, Presentations, information visualization, design
Steven R. Gomez, Radu Jianu, Caroline Ziemkiewicz, Hua Guo, David Laidlaw, "Different Strokes for Different Folks: Visual Presentation Design between Disciplines", IEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics, vol.18, no. 12, pp. 2411-2420, Dec. 2012, doi:10.1109/TVCG.2012.214
[1] M. Agrawala, W. Li, and F. Berthouzoz, Design principles for visual communication Commun. ACM, 54: 60-69, Apr. 2011.
[2] M. Agrawala and C. Stolte., Rendering effective route maps: Improving usability through generalization. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH, pages 241-250, 2001.
[3] M. W. Alibali, M. Bassok, K. O. Solomon,S. E. Syc,, and S. Goldin-Meadows., Illumination mental representations through speech and gesture Psychological Science, 10(4): 327-333, 1999.
[4] M. S. Bernstein, G. Little, R. C. Miller, B. Hartmann, M. S. Ackerman,D. R. Karger, D. Crowell, and K. Panovich., Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside. In Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, UIST ‘10, pages 313-322, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
[5] A. Biglan, The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas Journal of Applied Psychologv, 57(3): 195-203, 1973.
[6] M. Cherubini, G. Venolia, R. DeLine,, and A. J. Ko., Let's go to the white-board: how and why software developers use drawings. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI ‘07, pages 557-566, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
[7] J. Heiser, D. Phan, M. Agrawala., B. Tversky, and P. Hanrahan., Identifi-cation and validation of cognitive design principles for automated generation of assembly instructions. In Proceedings of Advanced Visual Inter-faces, pages 311-319, 2004.
[8] J. Hullman and N. Diakopoulos, Visualization rhetoric: Framing effects in narrative visualization IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12): 2231-2240, 2011.
[9] D. Kirsh, Thinking with external representations AI Soc., 25: 441-454, November 2010.
[10] J. Larkin and H. A. Simon., Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words Cognitive Science, 11: 65-99, 1987.
[11] W. Li, M. Agrawala, B. Curless,, and D. Salesin., Automated generation of interactive exploded-view diagrams. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 27(3): 101:1-101:11, 2008.
[12] Z. Liu and J. T. Stasko., Mental models, visual reasoning and interaction in information visualization: A top-down perspective IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6): 999-1008, 2010.
[13] M. Savva, N. Kong, A. Chhajta,L. Fei-Fei, M. Agrawala, and J. Heer., Re-Vision: Automated classification, analysis and redesign of chart images. In ACM User Interface Software&Technology (UIST), 2011.
[14] E. Segel and J. Heer, Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6): 1139-1148, 2010.
[15] M. Turk and A. Pentland., Eigenfaces for recognition. J. Cognitive Neuroscience, 3(1): 71-86, Jan. 1991.
[16] B. Tversky, J. Heiser, P. Lee,, and M.-P. Daniel., Explanations in gesture, diagram, and word. In K. R. Coventry, T. Tenbrink, and J. Bateman, editors, , Spatial Language and Dialogue. Oxford University Press, 2009.
[17] B. Tversky and M. Suwa., Thinking with sketches. In A. Markman, editor, Tools for Innovation. Oxford University Press, 2009.
[18] J. Walny, S. Carpendale, N. Henry Riche, G. Venolia, and P. Fawcett, Visual thinking in action: Visualizations as used on whiteboards IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17: 2508-2517, Dec. 2011.
16 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool