Seven Types of Visual Ambiguity: On the Merits and Risks of Multiple Interpretations of Collaborative Visualizations

The use of visuals as collaboration catalysts has recently gained attention in research on group work, knowledge management, sense making, and collaboration in general. A special feature of such visualizations (i.e., sketches, diagrams, visual metaphors, etc.) is their ambiguity or their quality to be open to multiple interpretations. While such ambiguities may cause misunderstandings and lead to loosing valuable time, they also offer the potential to reveal new insights, facilitate ad-hoc discoveries, reframe issues, increase identification, or stimulate group sense making. In this article we propose that visual ambiguity in group contexts is a relational variable that depends on three elements: the properties of the image, the people interpreting the image, and the interaction. We use these categories to propose a more fine-grained categorization consisting of seven types visual ambiguity: icon, symbol, index, interpreter background, familiarity, reference and scope ambiguity. We discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of visual ambiguity for collaboration, as well as ways of exploiting or reducing it. Our contribution sensitizes researchers and practitioners to the crucial and often overlooked role of ambiguity in visual group communication, particularly in collaborative contexts. We highlight the diverse forms of visual ambiguity and how to use this communicative challenge as a resource rather than simply a risk. A discussion of future research needs concludes the article.

[1]  J. Tankard The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA , 1996 .

[2]  G H Fisher,et al.  Measuring ambiguity. , 1967, The American journal of psychology.

[3]  Atsushi Shimojima,et al.  ON THE EFFICACY OF REPRESENTATION , 1996 .

[4]  Steve Benford,et al.  Ambiguity as a resource for design , 2003, CHI '03.

[5]  E. Fenton,et al.  Visualising Strategic Change:: The Role and Impact of Process Maps as Boundary Objects in Reorganisation , 2007 .

[6]  E. Tufte Beautiful Evidence , 2006 .

[7]  K. Rudnick The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings , 1993 .

[8]  Kathleen M. Sutcliffe,et al.  Information Handling Challenges in Complex Systems , 2005 .

[9]  E. Eisenberg Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication , 1984 .

[10]  Eldon Evans The Interactional View: Studies at the Mental Research Institute 1965–74 , 1977 .

[11]  Paul E. Keel Ewall: A Visual Analytics Environment for Collaborative Sense-Making , 2007, Inf. Vis..

[12]  Paul Watzlawick,et al.  The Interactional view : studies at the Mental Research Institute, Palo Alto, 1965-1974 , 1977 .

[13]  Arianna D'Ulizia,et al.  Visual Notation Interpretation and Ambiguities , 2008 .

[14]  Fernando Ferri Visual Languages for Interactive Computing: Definitions and Formalizations , 2007 .

[15]  Jennifer Whyte,et al.  Visual practices and the objects used in design , 2007 .

[16]  Gabriel Szulanski The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness , 2000 .

[17]  Peter T. Bürgi,et al.  Images of Strategy , 2003 .

[18]  R. Ulmer,et al.  Consistent Questions of Ambiguity in Organizational Crisis Communication: Jack in the Box as a Case Study , 2000 .

[19]  E. Boring A new ambiguous figure. , 1930 .

[20]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[21]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Visuospatial Reasoning , 2004 .

[22]  Martin J. Eppler,et al.  Managing team knowledge: core processes, tools and enabling factors , 2000 .

[23]  Diane Vaughan,et al.  The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA , 1996 .

[24]  G. Akin,et al.  Putting metaphors to work for change in organizations , 2000 .

[25]  K. Weick FROM SENSEMAKING IN ORGANIZATIONS , 2021, The New Economic Sociology.

[26]  Umberto Eco,et al.  Peirce's Notion of Interpretant , 1976 .

[27]  Edward R. Tufte Visual explanations: images and quantities, evidence and narrative , 1997 .

[28]  Janis L. Edwards,et al.  Representative form and the visual ideograph: The Iwo Jima image in editorial cartoons , 1997 .

[29]  Robert P. Futrelle Ambiguity in visual language theory and its role in diagram parsing , 1999, Proceedings 1999 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages.

[30]  M. L. Mitchell,et al.  Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative , 1997 .

[31]  Danilo Avola,et al.  Ambiguities in Sketch-Based Interfaces , 2007, 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07).

[32]  Maria Chiara Caschera The Management Of Ambiguities , 2008 .

[33]  Jennifer Whyte,et al.  Visualizing Knowledge in Project-Based Work , 2008 .

[34]  Maria Kutar,et al.  Cognitive Dimensions of Notations: Design Tools for Cognitive Technology , 2001, Cognitive Technology.