Different Strokes for Different Folks: Visual Presentation Design between Disciplines

We present an ethnographic study of design differences in visual presentations between academic disciplines. Characterizing design conventions between users and data domains is an important step in developing hypotheses, tools, and design guidelines for information visualization. In this paper, disciplines are compared at a coarse scale between four groups of fields: social, natural, and formal sciences; and the humanities. Two commonplace presentation types were analyzed: electronic slideshows and whiteboard “chalk talks”. We found design differences in slideshows using two methods - coding and comparing manually-selected features, like charts and diagrams, and an image-based analysis using PCA called eigenslides. In whiteboard talks with controlled topics, we observed design behaviors, including using representations and formalisms from a participant's own discipline, that suggest authors might benefit from novel assistive tools for designing presentations. Based on these findings, we discuss opportunities for visualization ethnography and human-centered authoring tools for visual information.

[1]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Explanations in Gesture, Diagram, and Word , 2009, Spatial Language and Dialogue.

[2]  Nicholas Diakopoulos,et al.  Visualization Rhetoric: Framing Effects in Narrative Visualization , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[3]  Jeffrey Heer,et al.  ReVision: automated classification, analysis and redesign of chart images , 2011, UIST.

[4]  Chris Stolte,et al.  Rendering effective route maps: improving usability through generalization , 2001, SIGGRAPH.

[5]  John T. Stasko,et al.  Mental Models, Visual Reasoning and Interaction in Information Visualization: A Top-down Perspective , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[6]  Masaki Suwa,et al.  Thinking with Sketches , 2009 .

[7]  Pat Hanrahan,et al.  Identification and validation of cognitive design principles for automated generation of assembly instructions , 2004, AVI.

[8]  David Salesin,et al.  Automated generation of interactive 3D exploded view diagrams , 2008, ACM Trans. Graph..

[9]  A. Biglan The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. , 1973 .

[10]  Robert DeLine,et al.  Let's go to the whiteboard: how and why software developers use drawings , 2007, CHI.

[11]  Susan Goldin-Meadow,et al.  Illuminating Mental Representations Through Speech and Gesture , 1999 .

[12]  M. Turk,et al.  Eigenfaces for Recognition , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[13]  Jeffrey Heer,et al.  Narrative Visualization: Telling Stories with Data , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[14]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  Visual Thinking In Action: Visualizations As Used On Whiteboards , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[15]  Wilmot Li,et al.  Design principles for visual communication , 2011, Commun. ACM.

[16]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside , 2010, UIST.

[17]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[18]  David Kirsh,et al.  Thinking with external representations , 2010, AI & SOCIETY.