SCC 2014 - Data visualisation for public engagement

417 views
311 views

Published on

Data Visualisation and Information Design are increasingly employed in print, broadcast and web media to convey complex ideas or bring simple ones to life. The tools for maps, infographics and visualisations are becoming cheaper and easier to use, and the range of approaches is diversifying. At the same time, data of all kinds is becoming more accessible, whether on research funding (through the Gateways to Research platform), Open Government Data, or the results of individual research projects – as Open Access initiatives to make sharing scientific data a key element of journal publications. We will cover basic ideas and examples of visualisation for newcomers, how visualisation exists as part of wider engagement goals and include a more critical discussion about what visualisation needs to do in order to be a meaningful mechanism for engagement and participation.

Speakers: Andrew Steele (Cancer Research UK), Artemis Skarlatidou (UCL), Damien George, (University of Cambridge), Martin Austwick (UCL)

Published in: Science, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
417
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

SCC 2014 - Data visualisation for public engagement

  1. 1. Data Visualisation for Public Engagement Damien George, Andrew Steele, Artemis Skarlatidou Chair: Martin Zaltz Austwick 1
  2. 2. Data Visualisation for Public Engagement Martin Zaltz Austwick, Course Director MRes Advanced Spatial Analysis and Visualisation CASA, Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, UCL 2
  3. 3. Damien George Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge paperscape.org thecmb.org 3
  4. 4. The Scienceogram Making sense of science spending scienceogram.org @scienceogram Andrew Steele
  5. 5. social protection £3900 healthcare £1900 education £1000 defence £700 other £3500 research £160 £695bn government spend £11,000 per person 63m population =
  6. 6. causes of death research spend per person per year cancer 30% £4.30 stroke 10% heart disease 15% 28p £1.30
  7. 7. Nuclear fusion • Hasn’t that been 30 years away for the last 30 years? • Hasn’t that been 50 years away for the last 50 years? • Hasn’t that been 30 years away for the last 50 years?
  8. 8. £60bn develop fusion 1.1bn population of high-income countries £50 per person =
  9. 9. Blue-skies research
  10. 10. fusion (projected) £60,000,000,000 iPhone revenue £123,000,000,000 iPhone profit £65,000,000,000 LHC £2,600,000,000 Crossrail £14,800,000,000
  11. 11. fusion (projected) £60,000,000,000 iPhone revenue £123,000,000,000 iPhone profit £65,000,000,000 LHC £2,600,000,000 Crossrail £14,800,000,000
  12. 12. energy £10 cancer £5 heart disease £1 stroke 28p alcohol loo roll £17 weddings £160 £600
  13. 13. Put data in context  Meaningful figures  Meaningful categories  Meaningful comparisons scienceogram.org @scienceogram
  14. 14. The Scienceogram Making sense of science spending scienceogram.org @scienceogram Andrew Steele andrewsteele.co.uk @statto Tom Fuller
  15. 15. trust User Issues: spatial visualisations for public engagement Dr Artemis Skarlatidou Extreme Citizen Science Group www.ucl.ac.uk/excites a.skarlatidou@ucl.ac.uk Science Communication | Data Visualisation | 1 May 2014
  16. 16. Public Engagement and Spatial Visualisations • “Almost everything that happens, happens somewhere…” (Longley, 2005) • From cave drawings of spatial representations to online maps that are used by almost everyone (with internet access) and everywhere..! • Human spatial ability? – People trust (i.e. rely on) maps more than their spatial cognition and ability to navigate and – People trust maps more than other types of data visualisation despite the fact that all maps lie (Monmonier, 1996) • PPGIS studies claim that “cultivate a stronger sense of commitment, increase user satisfaction, create realistic expectations of outcomes and build trust” (Al-Kodmany, 1999); allow for integration of indigenous knowledge with expert data (Dunn, 2007)...
  17. 17. Engaging the public using maps (provision of information)
  18. 18. Engaging the public using maps (contribution and analysis of information)
  19. 19. Engaging the public using maps (analysing information – make and submit decision)
  20. 20. But what about the users? • Is it easy to use? • Is it trustworthy? • Is it useful? • Do people understand it? Do they like it? • ….does it meet its purpose? • Other user issues such as: Public familiarity and expertise in spatial data handling and analysis etc?
  21. 21. • Public engagement to: – improve transparency and build trust – understand the problem and resolve NIMBY-type conflicts and potentially find a solution – very limited public knowledge of nuclear & nuclear waste disposal issues… improve public understanding The Nuclear Waste Disposal example
  22. 22. [Improving public understanding] • Content – Risk Communication & Mental Models and HCI testing
  23. 23. Improving Trust / Helping people develop rational trust perceptions • Trust Design – Trustee attributes – Functional attributes (e.g. usability, aesthetics) – Perceptual attributes (e.g. reputation of the source) – trust cues (e.g. logos, pictures, videos, blogs)
  24. 24. [Trust Guidelines - 5 design dimensions] User Interface Map/ Spatial Visualisation component Graphic Structure Content Functionality Menu should match popular menu visualisations. Distinct colours should be used or shades of blue if this not possible. Map larger than 388x589 pix. Trust Cues Provide a map tutorial below the map Visible logos from all pages Provide a blog …. Skarlatidou, A., Cheng, T. and Haklay, M.(2013) Guidelines for Trust Interface Design for Public Engagement Web GIS, International Journal of GIScience, 257,8, pp. 1668-1687.
  25. 25. colours
  26. 26. colours
  27. 27. legend
  28. 28. map size
  29. 29. Different structure similar to Health Physics Society on Radioactive Waste Disposal Website structure Mental models structure
  30. 30. Testing and extending the guidelines on other contexts • communicating clearly data generalisation issues • Perceived usefulness … ? ?
  31. 31. Aesthetics This is a Van Gogh! …and this is a Matisse!!! Fabrikant et al. (2012) Emotional response to map design aesthetics. In: GIScience 2012: Seventh International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Columbus, Ohio, 18 September 2012 - 21 September 2012.
  32. 32. Thank you!!! a.skarlatidou@ucl.ac.uk

×