Comparing Bar Chart Authoring with Microsoft Excel and Tangible Tiles
Comparing Bar Chart Authoring with Microsoft Excel and Tangible Tiles
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/cgf.12887
复制
发表时间：
2016-06
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Tiffany Wun;J. Payne;Samuel Huron;Sheelagh Carpendale
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tiffany Wun;J. Payne;Samuel Huron;Sheelagh Carpendale
提供使可视化非专家能够访问可视化创作的工具是一个主要的研究挑战。目前，生成可视化效果最常见的方法是使用基于模板快速自动生成可视化效果的软件。然而，最近有人建议，用有形的瓷砖构建可视化可能是一种更容易实现的方法，特别是对于没有可视化专业知识的人。关于这两种可视化创作实践之间的差异，还有很多需要学习的地方。为了更好地了解人们在这两种情况下是如何创作可视化的，我们进行了一项定性研究，将软件的使用与有形瓷砖的使用进行了比较，以创建条形图。对创作活动的仔细观察表明，以下每一项如何根据所使用的工具而变化：1)动作顺序；2)在InfoVis管道的不同方面花费的时间分布；3)管道任务分离；以及4)操纵视觉变量的自由。从这些观察中，我们讨论了活动序列变化的含义，注意到了工具设计的考虑因素，并指出了未来的研究问题。
Providing tools that make visualization authoring accessible to visualization non‐experts is a major research challenge. Currently the most common approach to generating a visualization is to use software that quickly and automatically produces visualizations based on templates. However, it has recently been suggested that constructing a visualization with tangible tiles may be a more accessible method, especially for people without visualization expertise. There is still much to be learned about the differences between these two visualization authoring practices. To better understand how people author visualizations in these two conditions, we ran a qualitative study comparing the use of software to the use of tangible tiles, for the creation of bar charts. Close observation of authoring activities showed how each of the following varied according to the tool used: 1) sequences of action; 2) distribution of time spent on different aspects of the InfoVis pipeline; 3) pipeline task separation; and 4) freedom to manipulate visual variables. From these observations, we discuss the implications of the variations in activity sequences, noting tool design considerations and pointing to future research questions.