Evaluating the Dot-Based Contingency Wheel: Results from a Usability and Utility Study

The Dot-Based Contingency Wheel is an interactive visual-analytics method designed to discover and analyze positive associations in an asymmetrically large n ×m contingency table. Such tables summarize the relation between two categorical variables and arise in both scientific and business domains. This paper presents the results of a pilot evaluation study based on interviews conducted with ten users to assess both the conceptual design as well as the usability and utility of the Dot-Based Contingency Wheel. The results illustrate that the Wheel as a metaphor has some advantages, especially its interactive features and ability to provide an overview of large tables. On the other hand, we found major issues with this metaphor, especially how it represents the relations between the variables. Based on these results, the metaphor was redesigned as Contingency Wheel++, which uses simplified and more familiar visual representations to tackle the major issues we identified.

[1]  Anna L. Cox,et al.  Research Methods for Human-Computer Interaction , 2008 .

[2]  Silvia Miksch,et al.  Reinventing the Contingency Wheel: Scalable Visual Analytics of Large Categorical Data , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[3]  Shailey Minocha,et al.  User Interface Design and Evaluation (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies) (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies) , 2005 .

[4]  J. Bortz,et al.  Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler , 2006 .

[5]  Silvia Miksch,et al.  Contingency Wheel: Visual Analysis of Large Contingency Tables , 2011, EuroVA@EuroVis.

[6]  J. A. Hartigan,et al.  Mosaics for Contingency Tables , 1981 .

[7]  Chauncey E. Wilson,et al.  User Experience Re-Mastered: Your Guide to Getting the Right Design , 2009 .

[8]  R. Kosara,et al.  Parallel sets: visual analysis of categorical data , 2005, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. INFOVIS 2005..

[9]  Catherine Courage,et al.  Understanding Your Users: A Practical Guide to User Requirements Methods, Tools, and Techniques , 2005 .

[10]  Anna L. Cox,et al.  Questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups , 2008 .

[11]  A. D. Gordon,et al.  Correspondence Analysis Handbook. , 1993 .

[12]  J. Bortz,et al.  Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation , 1995 .

[13]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  Evaluating Information Visualizations , 2008, Information Visualization.

[14]  Catherine Courage,et al.  CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION TO USER REQUIREMENTS , 2005 .