A Guide to Visual Multi-Level Interface Design From Synthesis of Empirical Study Evidence

Displaying multiple levels of data visually has been proposed to address the challenge of limited screen space. Although many previous empirical studies have addressed different aspects of this question, the information visualization research community does not currently have a clearly articulated consensus on how, when, or even if displaying data at multiple levels is effective. To shed more light on this complex topic, we conducted a systematic review of 22 existing multi-level interface studies to extract high-level design guidelines. To facilitate discussion, we cast our analysis findings into a four-point decision tree: (1) When are multi-level displays useful? (2) What should the higher visual levels display? (3) Should the different visual levels be displayed simultaneously, or one at a time? (4) Should the visual levels be embedded in a single display, or separated into multiple displays? Our analysis resulted in three design guidelines: (1) the number of levels in display and data should match; (2) high visual levels should only display task-relevant information; (3) simultaneous display, rather than temporal switching, is suitable for tasks with multi-level answers. Table of Contents: Introduction / Terminology / Methodology / Summary of Studies / Decision 1: Single or Multi-level Interface? / Decision 2: How to Create the High-Level Displays? / Decision 3: Simultaneous or Temporal Displays of the Multiple Visual Levels / Decision 4: How to Spatially Arrange the Visual Levels, Embedded or Separate? / Limitations of Study / Design Recommendations / Discussion and Future Work

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

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

[3]  Eliane Regina de Almeida Valiati,et al.  A taxonomy of tasks for guiding the evaluation of multidimensional visualizations , 2006, BELIV '06.

[4]  Kristin A. Cook,et al.  Illuminating the Path: The Research and Development Agenda for Visual Analytics , 2005 .

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

[6]  Chris North,et al.  User Interaction with Scatterplots on Small Screens - A Comparative Evaluation of Geometric-Semantic Zoom and Fisheye Distortion , 2006 .

[7]  Laurence Nigay,et al.  Design method of interaction techniques for large information spaces , 1998, AVI '98.

[8]  Patrick Baudisch,et al.  Halo: a Technique for Visualizing Off-Screen Locations , 2003 .

[9]  Doug A. Bowman,et al.  A Comparison of Traditional and Fisheye Radar View Techniques for Spatial Collaboration , 2003, Graphics Interface.

[10]  Catherine Plaisant,et al.  The challenge of information visualization evaluation , 2004, AVI.

[11]  Tamara Munzner,et al.  Overview Use in Multiple Visual Information Resolution Interfaces , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[12]  Patrick Baudisch,et al.  Summary thumbnails: readable overviews for small screen web browsers , 2005, CHI.

[13]  Daniel N. Mountjoy,et al.  Perception-Based Development and PerformanceTesting of a Non-Linear Map Display , 2001 .

[14]  Kang Shi,et al.  An evaluation of content browsing techniques for hierarchical space-filling visualizations , 2005, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. INFOVIS 2005..

[15]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Finding Things In Fisheyes: Memorability in Distorted Spaces , 2003, Graphics Interface.

[16]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Fisheye Views are Good for Large Steering Tasks , 2003 .

[17]  Catherine Plaisant,et al.  SpaceTree: supporting exploration in large node link tree, design evolution and empirical evaluation , 2002, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2002. INFOVIS 2002..

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

[19]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Image-Browser Taxonomy and Guidelines for Designers , 1995, IEEE Softw..

[20]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  Reading of electronic documents: the usability of linear, fisheye, and overview+detail interfaces , 2001, CHI.

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

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

[23]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  On the effects of viewing cues in comprehending distortions , 2002, NordiCHI '02.

[24]  Harald Reiterer,et al.  User Interaction with Scatterplots on Small Screens - A Comparative Evaluation of Geometric-Semantic Zoom and Fisheye Distortion , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[25]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Ordered and quantum treemaps: Making effective use of 2D space to display hierarchies , 2002, TOGS.

[26]  Purvi Saraiya,et al.  Visualization of graphs with associated timeseries data , 2005, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. INFOVIS 2005..

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

[28]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  Reading patterns and usability in visualizations of electronic documents , 2003, TCHI.

[29]  Alan J. Dix,et al.  A Taxonomy of Clutter Reduction for Information Visualisation , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[30]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  Untangling the usability of fisheye menus , 2007, TCHI.

[31]  Benjamin B. Bederson,et al.  A review of overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces , 2009, CSUR.

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

[33]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Things That Make Us Smart: Defending Human Attributes In The Age Of The Machine , 1993 .

[34]  Mikkel Rønne Jakobsen,et al.  Evaluating a fisheye view of source code , 2006, CHI.

[35]  Patrick Baudisch,et al.  Keeping things in context: a comparative evaluation of focus plus context screens, overviews, and zooming , 2002, CHI.

[36]  Bongshin Lee,et al.  Fishnet, a fisheye web browser with search term popouts: a comparative evaluation with overview and linear view , 2004, AVI.

[37]  Heidi Lam,et al.  A Framework of Interaction Costs in Information Visualization , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[38]  M. Hegarty,et al.  Individual Differences in Spatial Abilities , 2005 .

[39]  Andy Cockburn,et al.  Hidden messages: evaluating the efficiency of code elision in program navigation , 2003, Interact. Comput..

[40]  Tamara Munzner,et al.  Perceptual invariance of nonlinear Focus+Context transformations , 2004, APGV '04.

[41]  Chris North,et al.  Snap-together visualization: can users construct and operate coordinated visualizations? , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[42]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  Making distortions comprehensible , 1997, Proceedings. 1997 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages (Cat. No.97TB100180).

[43]  Benjamin B. Bederson,et al.  Fisheye menus , 2000, UIST '00.

[44]  Colin Ware,et al.  Zooming versus multiple window interfaces: Cognitive costs of visual comparisons , 2006, TCHI.

[45]  A. Cockburn,et al.  Hidden Messages : Evaluating the Effectiveness of Code Elision in Program Navigation , 2001 .

[46]  Ivan Herman,et al.  Graph Visualization and Navigation in Information Visualization: A Survey , 2000, IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph..

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

[48]  Tamara Munzner,et al.  Increasing the utility of quantitative empirical studies for meta-analysis , 2008, BELIV '08.

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

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

[51]  Marco Winckler,et al.  Tasks and scenario-based evaluation of information visualization techniques , 2004, TAMODIA '04.

[52]  George W. Furnas,et al.  A fisheye follow-up: further reflections on focus + context , 2006, CHI.

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

[54]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  The effects of information scent on visual search in the hyperbolic tree browser , 2003, TCHI.

[55]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Empirical studies of information visualization: a meta-analysis , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[56]  George W. Furnas,et al.  Critical zones in desert fog: aids to multiscale navigation , 1998, UIST '98.

[57]  Pamela Effrein Sandstrom,et al.  Information Foraging Theory: Adaptive Interaction with Information , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[58]  Tamara Munzner,et al.  Effects of 2D geometric transformations on visual memory , 2006, APGV '06.

[59]  B. Mihov,et al.  Received; accepted , 1994 .

[60]  John T. Stasko,et al.  Please address correspondence to , 2000 .

[61]  Daniel A. Keim,et al.  Challenges in Visual Data Analysis , 2006, Tenth International Conference on Information Visualisation (IV'06).