Perceptual invariance of nonlinear Focus+Context transformations

Focus+Context techniques are commonly used in visualization systems to simultaneously provide both the details and the context of a particular dataset. This paper proposes a new methodology to empirically investigate the effect of various Focus+Context transformations on human perception. This methodology is based on the shaker paradigm, which tests performance for a visual task on an image that is rapidly alternated with a transformed version of itself. An important aspect of this technique is that it can determine two different kinds of perceptual cost: (i) the effect on the perception of a static transformed image, and (ii) the effect of the dynamics of the transformation itself. This technique has been successfully applied to determine the extent to which human perception is invariant to scaling and rotation [Rensink 2004]. In this paper, we extend this approach to examine nonlinear fisheye transformations of the type typically used in a Focus+Context system. We show that there exists a no-cost zone where performance is unaffected by an abrupt, noticeable fisheye transformation, and that its extent can be determined. The lack of perceptual cost in regards to these sudden changes contradicts the belief that they are necessarily detrimental to performance, and suggests that smoothly animated transformations between visual states are not always necessary. We show that this technique also can map out low-cost zones where transformations result in only a slight degradation of performance. Finally, we show that rectangular grids have no positive effect on performance, acting only as a form of visual clutter. These results therefore demonstrate that the perceptual costs of nonlinear transformations can be successfully quantified. Interestingly, they show that some kinds of sudden transformation can be experienced with minimal or no perceptual cost. This contradicts the belief that sudden changes are necessarily detrimental to performance, and suggests that smoothly animated transformations between visual states are not always necessary.

[1]  Jock D. Mackinlay,et al.  The document lens , 1993, UIST '93.

[2]  Marilyn M. Mantei,et al.  Human factors in computing systems : CHI '86 conference proceedings, April 13-17, Boston , 1986 .

[3]  Saul Greenberg,et al.  Navigating hierarchically clustered networks through fisheye and full-zoom methods , 1996, TCHI.

[4]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations , 1996, Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages.

[5]  Manojit Sarkar,et al.  Graphical fisheye views of graphs , 1992, CHI.

[6]  Steven P. Reiss,et al.  Stretching the rubber sheet: a metaphor for viewing large layouts on small screens , 1993, UIST '93.

[7]  Mark D. Apperley,et al.  A review and taxonomy of distortion-oriented presentation techniques , 1994, TCHI.

[8]  Jock D. Mackinlay,et al.  The cognitive coprocessor architecture for interactive user interfaces , 1989, UIST '89.

[9]  Edward L. Robertson,et al.  Nonlinear magnification fields , 1997, Proceedings of VIZ '97: Visualization Conference, Information Visualization Symposium and Parallel Rendering Symposium.

[10]  J. Mackinlay,et al.  The cost-of-knowledge characteristic function: display evaluation for direct-walk dynamic information visualizations , 1994, CHI '94.

[11]  Jiajie Zhang,et al.  The Interaction of Internal and External Representations in a Problem Solving Task , 1990 .

[12]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  An initial examination of ease of use for 2D and 3D information visualizations of web content , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Anne Treisman,et al.  Preattentive processing in vision , 1985, Computer Vision Graphics and Image Processing.

[14]  Ramana Rao,et al.  A focus+context technique based on hyperbolic geometry for visualizing large hierarchies , 1995, CHI '95.

[15]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.

[16]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Improving focus targeting in interactive fisheye views , 2002, CHI.

[17]  M. Tarr,et al.  Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  G. W. Furnas,et al.  Generalized fisheye views , 1986, CHI '86.

[19]  C. Bundesen,et al.  Visual transformation of size. , 1975, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

[21]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  A framework for unifying presentation space , 2001, UIST '01.

[22]  Serdar Tasiran,et al.  TreeJuxtaposer: scalable tree comparison using Focus+Context with guaranteed visibility , 2003, ACM Trans. Graph..

[23]  Ronald A. Rensink The Invariance of Visual Search to Geometric Transformation , 2004 .

[24]  James E. Cutting On the efficacy of cinema, or what the visual system did not evolve to do , 1991 .

[25]  J E Cutting,et al.  Rigidity in cinema seen from the front row, side aisle. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Fisheyes are good for large steering tasks , 2003, CHI '03.

[27]  Colin Ware,et al.  Visualization of Large Nested Graphs in 3D: Navigation and Interaction , 1998, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[28]  Manojit Sarkar,et al.  Graphical fisheye views , 1994, CACM.

[29]  Alfred Kobsa User Experiments with Tree Visualization Systems , 2004 .

[30]  G. Furnas,et al.  Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI ’ 94 • “ Celebrating Interdependence ” 330 , 1994 .

[31]  Colin Ware,et al.  Information Visualization: Perception for Design , 2000 .

[32]  Catherine Plaisant,et al.  Navigation patterns and usability of zoomable user interfaces with and without an overview , 2002, TCHI.

[33]  Tamara Munzner,et al.  H3: laying out large directed graphs in 3D hyperbolic space , 1997, Proceedings of VIZ '97: Visualization Conference, Information Visualization Symposium and Parallel Rendering Symposium.

[34]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  3-dimensional pliable surfaces: for the effective presentation of visual information , 1995, UIST '95.

[35]  MA Shu-qin The Interaction of Internal and External Capital: the New Wheel of Promoting Zhejiang Industrial Competitiveness , 2005 .

[36]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Interacting with Big Interfaces on Small Screens: a Comparison of Fisheye, Zoom, and Panning Techniques , 2004, Graphics Interface.

[37]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Using Disortion-Oriented Displays to Support Workspace Awareness , 1996, BCS HCI.

[38]  Edward L. Robertson,et al.  Techniques for non-linear magnification transformations , 1996, Proceedings IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization '96.

[39]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  DateLens: A fisheye calendar interface for PDAs , 2004, TCHI.

[40]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  A Comparison of Fisheye Lenses for Interactive Layout Tasks , 2004, Graphics Interface.

[41]  J. Mackinlay,et al.  The cost-of-knowledge characteristic function: display evaluation for direct-walk dynamic information visualizations , 1994, CHI Conference Companion.

[42]  Ramana Rao,et al.  The table lens: merging graphical and symbolic representations in an interactive focus + context visualization for tabular information , 1994, CHI '94.