Putting the “I” in Interaction: Interactive Interfaces Personalized to Individuals

Interactive data exploration and analysis is an inherently personal process. One's background, experience, interests, cognitive style, personality, and other sociotechnical factors often shape such a process, as well as the provenance of exploring, analyzing, and interpreting data. This Viewpoint posits both what personal information and how such personal information could be taken into account to design more effective visual analytic systems, a valuable and under-explored direction.

[1]  Cristina Conati,et al.  User-adaptive Support for Processing Magazine Style Narrative Visualizations: Identifying User Characteristics that Matter , 2018, IUI.

[2]  Moon J. Lee,et al.  Expanding Hypertext: Does It Address Disorientation? Depends on Individuals' Adventurousness , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

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

[4]  Cristina Conati,et al.  Exploring the role of individual differences in information visualization , 2008, AVI '08.

[5]  Chris North,et al.  With respect to what?: simultaneous interaction with dimension reduction and clustering projections , 2020, IUI.

[6]  D Dawson,et al.  A quantitative model of work-related fatigue: background and definition , 2001, Ergonomics.

[7]  Zhen Wen,et al.  Behavior-driven visualization recommendation , 2009, IUI.

[8]  Gloria Mark,et al.  Trusting Virtual Agents , 2019, ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst..

[9]  Alex Endert,et al.  Warning, Bias May Occur: A Proposed Approach to Detecting Cognitive Bias in Interactive Visual Analytics , 2017, 2017 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST).

[10]  Jonathan Klein,et al.  This computer responds to user frustration: Theory, design, and results , 2002, Interact. Comput..

[11]  Jeffrey Heer,et al.  Scented Widgets: Improving Navigation Cues with Embedded Visualizations , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[12]  Mark S. Hancock,et al.  Metatation: Annotation as Implicit Interaction to Bridge Close and Distant Reading , 2017, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..

[13]  Michael Stonebraker,et al.  Dynamic Prefetching of Data Tiles for Interactive Visualization , 2016, SIGMOD Conference.

[14]  Olga Kulyk,et al.  A Provenance Task Abstraction Framework , 2019, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[15]  Chris North,et al.  Multi-model semantic interaction for text analytics , 2014, 2014 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST).

[16]  Daniel Afergan,et al.  Improving Bayesian Reasoning: The Effects of Phrasing, Visualization, and Spatial Ability , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[17]  Luiz Fernando Capretz,et al.  Making Sense of Software Development and Personality Types , 2010, IT Professional.

[18]  Krzysztof Z. Gajos,et al.  SUPPLE: automatically generating user interfaces , 2004, IUI '04.

[19]  Chris North,et al.  Semantic Interaction for Sensemaking: Inferring Analytical Reasoning for Model Steering , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[20]  Steve Benford,et al.  Coping with Uncertainty in a Location-Based Game , 2003, IEEE Pervasive Comput..

[21]  Alex Endert,et al.  Finding Waldo: Learning about Users from their Interactions , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[22]  Huahai Yang,et al.  Personality as a Predictor of User Strategy: How Locus of Control Affects Search Strategies on Tree Visualizations , 2015, CHI.

[23]  G. Loewenstein.  The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. , 1994 .

[24]  Bongshin Lee,et al.  ActiveInk: (Th)Inking with Data , 2019, CHI.

[25]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Under pressure: sensing stress of computer users , 2014, CHI.

[26]  Hwee Tou Ng,et al.  Domain Adaptation with Active Learning for Word Sense Disambiguation , 2007, ACL.