Evaluating the Impact of User Characteristics and Different Layouts on an Interactive Visualization for Decision Making

There is increasing evidence that user characteristics can have a significant impact on visualization effectiveness, suggesting that visualizations could be designed to better fit each user's specific needs. Most studies to date, however, have looked at static visualizations. Studies considering interactive visualizations have only looked at a limited number of user characteristics, and consider either low‐level tasks (e.g., value retrieval), or high‐level tasks (in particular: discovery), but not both. This paper contributes to this line of work by looking at the impact of a large set of user characteristics on user performance with interactive visualizations, for both low and high‐level tasks. We focus on interactive visualizations that support decision making, exemplified by a visualization known as Value Charts. We include in the study two versions of ValueCharts that differ in terms of layout, to ascertain whether layout mediates the impact of individual differences and could be considered as a form of personalization. Our key findings are that (i) performance with low and high‐level tasks is affected by different user characteristics, and (ii) users with low visual working memory perform better with a horizontal layout. We discuss how these findings can inform the provision of personalized support to visualization processing.

[1]  David J. Weiss,et al.  A Framework for the Development of Computerized Adaptive Tests. , 2011 .

[2]  E. Vogel,et al.  Human Variation in Overriding Attentional Capture , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[3]  Beate Grawemeyer,et al.  Evaluation of ERST - An External Representation Selection Tutor , 2006, Diagrams.

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

[5]  Giuseppe Carenini,et al.  An empirical evaluation of interactive visualizations for preferential choice , 2008, AVI '08.

[6]  Catholijn M. Jonker,et al.  Designing interfaces for explicit preference elicitation: a user-centered investigation of preference representation and elicitation process , 2011, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[7]  Bryce Allen Individual differences and the conundrums of user-centered design: two experiments , 2000 .

[8]  Marilyn Tremaine,et al.  Understanding visualization through spatial ability differences , 2005, VIS 05. IEEE Visualization, 2005..

[9]  Cristina Conati,et al.  Individual user characteristics and information visualization: connecting the dots through eye tracking , 2013, CHI.

[10]  Giuseppe Carenini,et al.  ValueCharts: analyzing linear models expressing preferences and evaluations , 2004, AVI.

[11]  Chetan S. Sankar,et al.  A DSS user interface model to provide consistency and adaptability , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[12]  James R. Eagan,et al.  Low-level components of analytic activity in information visualization , 2005, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. INFOVIS 2005..

[13]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  What are the shapes of response time distributions in visual search? , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  Hanspeter Pfister,et al.  LineUp: Visual Analysis of Multi-Attribute Rankings , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[15]  Ting-Peng Liang,et al.  User interface design for decision support systems: A self-adaptive approach , 1987, Inf. Manag..

[16]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Spatial ability and visual navigation: an Empirical Study , 1997, New Rev. Hypermedia Multim..

[17]  R. Engle,et al.  Is working memory capacity task dependent , 1989 .

[18]  Tamara Munzner,et al.  A Multi-Level Typology of Abstract Visualization Tasks , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[19]  Roel Bosker,et al.  Modeled Variance in Two-Level Models , 1994 .

[20]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Readings in information visualization - using vision to think , 1999 .

[21]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Generating and evaluating evaluative arguments , 2006, Artif. Intell..

[22]  T. Zandt,et al.  How to fit a response time distribution , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[23]  William Ribarsky,et al.  How locus of control influences compatibility with visualization style , 2011, 2011 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST).

[24]  Harald Reiterer,et al.  Usability of overview-supported zooming on small screens with regard to individual differences in spatial ability , 2006, AVI '06.

[25]  Cristina Conati,et al.  Highlighting interventions and user differences: informing adaptive information visualization support , 2014, CHI.

[26]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  The Influence of Task Interruption on Individual Decision Making: An Information Overload Perspective , 1999 .

[27]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Visual decision-making: using treemaps for the analytic hierarchy process , 1995, CHI 95 Conference Companion.

[28]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Querying event sequences by exact match or similarity search: Design and empirical evaluation , 2012, Interact. Comput..

[29]  Stephan Lewandowsky,et al.  The Perception of Statistical Graphs , 1989 .

[30]  J. Rotter Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. , 1966, Psychological monographs.

[31]  Chris Y. Lovato,et al.  Applying Tests of Equivalence for Multiple Group Comparisons: Demonstration of the Confidence Interval Approach. , 2011 .

[32]  Graham J Hole,et al.  How to Design and Report Experiments , 2002 .

[33]  Cleotilde Gonzalez,et al.  Task Workload and Cognitive Abilities in Dynamic Decision Making , 2005, Hum. Factors.

[34]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Spatial-semantics: How users derive shape from information space , 2000, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[35]  Cristina Conati,et al.  Towards adaptive information visualization: on the influence of user characteristics , 2012, UMAP.

[36]  Ji Soo Yi Visualized decision making: development and application of information visualization techniques to improve decision quality of nursing home choice , 2008 .

[37]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  GPOWER: A general power analysis program , 1996 .

[38]  Brian D. Fisher,et al.  Towards the Personal Equation of Interaction: The impact of personality factors on visual analytics interface interaction , 2010, 2010 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology.

[39]  Ruth B. Ekstrom,et al.  Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests , 1976 .

[40]  Giuseppe Carenini,et al.  An integrated task-based framework for the design and evaluation of visualizations to support preferential choice , 2006, AVI '06.

[41]  Gennady L. Andrienko,et al.  Informed Spatial Decisions Through Coordinated Views , 2003, Inf. Vis..

[42]  Cristina Conati,et al.  Inferring Visualization Task Properties, User Performance, and User Cognitive Abilities from Eye Gaze Data , 2014, ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst..