Comparing Node‐Link and Node‐Link‐Group Visualizations From An Enjoyment Perspective

While evaluation studies in visualization often involve traditional performance measurements, there has been a concerted effort to move beyond time and accuracy. Of these alternative aspects, memorability and recall of visualizations have been recently considered, but other aspects such as enjoyment and engagement are not as well explored. We study the enjoyment of two different visualization methods through a user study. In particular, we describe the results of a three‐phase experiment comparing the enjoyment of two different visualizations of the same relational data: node‐link and node‐link‐group visualizations. The results indicate that the participants in this study found node‐link‐group visualizations more enjoyable than node‐link visualizations.

[1]  Stephen G. Kobourov,et al.  Visualizing Graphs as Maps with Contiguous Regions , 2014, EuroVis.

[2]  Sung-Hee Kim,et al.  Does an Eye Tracker Tell the Truth about Visualizations?: Findings while Investigating Visualizations for Decision Making , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[3]  Stephen G. Kobourov,et al.  Towards Understanding Enjoyment and Flow in Information Visualization , 2015, EuroVis.

[4]  M. Csíkszentmihályi,et al.  Middle School Students’ Motivation and Quality of Experience: A Comparison of Montessori and Traditional School Environments , 2005, American Journal of Education.

[5]  Amy L. Parsons,et al.  Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things , 2006 .

[6]  Stephen G. Kobourov,et al.  Group-Level Graph Visualization Taxonomy , 2014, EuroVis.

[7]  M E J Newman,et al.  Modularity and community structure in networks. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  Bubble Sets: Revealing Set Relations with Isocontours over Existing Visualizations , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[9]  Nadine Moacdieh,et al.  Is “chart junk” useful? An extended examination of visual embellishment , 2014 .

[10]  Clifford A. Shaffer,et al.  Supporting creativity in problem solving environments , 2002, Creativity & Cognition.

[11]  Yifan Hu,et al.  Visualizing Graphs and Clusters as Maps , 2010, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[12]  Tamara Munzner,et al.  A Multi-Level Typology of Abstract Visualization Tasks , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[13]  John M. Artz.  Computers and the quality of life: assessing flow in information systems , 1996, CSOC.

[14]  Michelle A. Borkin,et al.  What Makes a Visualization Memorable? , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[15]  Steven Franconeri,et al.  ISOTYPE Visualization: Working Memory, Performance, and Engagement with Pictographs , 2015, CHI.

[16]  Irene Reppa,et al.  An Empirical Study on Using Visual Embellishments in Visualization , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[17]  Bettina Speckmann,et al.  KelpFusion: A Hybrid Set Visualization Technique , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[18]  Sung-Hee Kim,et al.  Towards a Taxonomy for Evaluating User Engagement in Information Visualization , 2015 .

[19]  D. Hoang.  FLOW: The Psychology of Optimal Experience , 2018 .

[20]  Noam Tractinsky,et al.  Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites , 2004 .

[21]  Stephen G. Kobourov,et al.  Node, Node-Link, and Node-Link-Group Diagrams: An Evaluation , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[22]  M. Csíkszentmihályi.  Flow. The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York (HarperPerennial) 1990. , 1990 .

[23]  Stephen G. Kobourov,et al.  Map‐based Visualizations Increase Recall Accuracy of Data , 2015, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[24]  Bernice E. Rogowitz,et al.  Perceptual Organization in User-Generated Graph Layouts , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[25]  Robert J. K. Jacob,et al.  Using fNIRS brain sensing to evaluate information visualization interfaces , 2013, CHI.

[26]  Stephen G. Kobourov,et al.  Are Crossings Important for Drawing Large Graphs? , 2014, Graph Drawing.

[27]  S. Jackson,et al.  Toward a conceptual understanding of the flow experience in elite athletes. , 1996, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[28]  Jean-Daniel Fekete,et al.  Storytelling in Information Visualizations: Does it Engage Users to Explore Data? , 2015, CHI.

[29]  Hanspeter Pfister,et al.  What Makes a Visualization Memorable? , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[30]  Sidonie Christophe,et al.  Emotional response to map design aesthetics , 2012 .

[31]  François Pachet,et al.  When children reflect on their own playing style: experiments with continuator and children , 2004, CIE.

[32]  Jean-Daniel Fekete,et al.  Task taxonomy for graph visualization , 2006, BELIV '06.

[33]  Kwan-Liu Ma,et al.  Stock Lamp: An Engagement-Versatile Visualization Design , 2015, CHI.

[34]  Detlef Krömker,et al.  A Multi-Microprocessor GKS Workstation , 1986, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[35]  Morgan Jennings,et al.  Theory and models for creating engaging and immersive ecommerce Websites , 2000, SIGCPR '00.

[36]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory , 2003 .

[37]  Peta Wyeth,et al.  GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games , 2005, CIE.

[38]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Optimizing challenge in an educational game using large-scale design experiments , 2013, CHI.

[39]  B. Fredrickson.  What Good Are Positive Emotions? , 1998, Review of general psychology : journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association.

[40]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Flavor network and the principles of food pairing , 2011, Scientific reports.

[41]  Yifan Hu,et al.  GMap: Visualizing graphs and clusters as maps , 2010, 2010 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis).

[42]  Niklas Elmqvist,et al.  Fluid interaction for information visualization , 2011, Inf. Vis..

[43]  Tamara Munzner,et al.  A Nested Model for Visualization Design and Validation , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[44]  Yifan Hu,et al.  How to Display Group Information on Node-Link Diagrams: An Evaluation , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[45]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Useful junk?: the effects of visual embellishment on comprehension and memorability of charts , 2010, CHI.

[46]  D. Norman.  Emotional design : why we love (or hate) everyday things , 2004 .

[47]  John A. Artz,et al.  Computers and the quality of life: assessing flow in information systems , 1996, CQL '96.

[48]  Steven Franconeri,et al.  Influencing visual judgment through affective priming , 2013, CHI.

[49]  Elizabeth Gerber,et al.  Affective computational priming and creativity , 2011, CHI.

[50]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Ways of Knowing in HCI , 2014, Springer New York.

[51]  Andreas Kerren,et al.  Detecting Insight and Emotion in Visualization Applications with a Commercial EEG Headset , 2011, SIGRAD.

[52]  F. Ullén,et al.  The psychophysiology of flow during piano playing. , 2010, Emotion.

[53]  Yifan Hu,et al.  Putting recommendations on the map: visualizing clusters and relations , 2009, RecSys '09.

[54]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Design Study of LineSets, a Novel Set Visualization Technique , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[55]  Nancy Argüelles,et al.  Author ' s , 2008 .