An Analytical Evaluation of a User Interaction History Visualization System Using CDN and PoN

RESUMO Visual analytics applications (VAApps) rely heavily on visual representations and notations to communicate information and support user’s interaction. In order to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of VAApps, we must pay special attention to the visual representations and their underlying interaction mechanisms. When designing visual representations, before investing time and other resources in conducting user evaluations, we can apply analytical approaches to guide design and to establish a common ground within the development team to compare and discuss design alternatives. In this paper, we use two analytical approaches to evaluate our early implementation of HistoryViewer (HV), a user interaction history visualization system. One approach uses the Physics of Notation theory [12], analyzing the graphical notation itself whilst documenting some design choices based on the principles stated in the theory. The other approach is the Cognitive Dimensions of Notation framework [9], which is used to evaluate usability by considering cognitive characteristics of notations used in the design of interface and interactions of a system. We compare the results of both studies in order to highlight the similarities and differences in the findings. We discuss how each theory contributed to the analysis. We also provide some guidance for the development team to use them in order to improve the final user interface solution.

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

[2]  Marian Petre,et al.  Usability Analysis of Visual Programming Environments: A 'Cognitive Dimensions' Framework , 1996, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[3]  Anastasia Bezerianos,et al.  Storytelling in Visual Analytics Tools for Business Intelligence , 2013, INTERACT.

[4]  André van der Hoek,et al.  Software Designers in Action: A Human-Centric Look at Design Work , 2013 .

[5]  Daniel A. Keim,et al.  Solving Problems with Visual Analytics , 2011, FET.

[6]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[7]  Simone D. J. Barbosa,et al.  History Viewer: Displaying User Interaction History in Visual Analytics Applications , 2016, HCI.

[8]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[9]  Daniel A. Keim,et al.  Challenging problems of geospatial visual analytics , 2011, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[10]  Alan F. Blackwell,et al.  CHAPTER 5 – Notational Systems—The Cognitive Dimensions of Notations Framework , 2003 .

[11]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  Combining cognitive, semiotic and discourse analysis to explore the power of notations in visual programming , 2012, 2012 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC).

[12]  Juliana Jansen Ferreira,et al.  Cognitive dimensions of notation tailored to environments for visualization and insights , 2015, IHC.

[13]  Daniel A. Keim,et al.  Visual Analytics: Combining Automated Discovery with Interactive Visualizations , 2008, Discovery Science.

[14]  Heidrun Schumann,et al.  Towards a conceptual framework for visual analytics of time and time-oriented data , 2007, 2007 Winter Simulation Conference.

[15]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives , 1995 .

[16]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Heuristic Evaluation of Prototypes (individual) , 2022 .