Comparative Evaluation of Two Interface Tools in Performing Visual Analytics Tasks<br />Dong Hyun Jeong*, Tera Marie Green...
Motivation<br />Human interaction & flow of cognition<br />Important for problem solving<br />“Visualization design should...
Objective<br />To show the effectiveness of two interface tools, Floating-Menu and Interactive-Icon, on a highly interacti...
A Visual Analytics Tool<br />A visual analytics tool<br />A genomic visualization (called GVis).<br />Uses publicly availa...
Information Representation<br />Representing information corresponding to each option selection<br /># of published articl...
Comparative Study<br />Within-subject study<br />College students<br />31 participants (twelve males and nineteen females)...
Evaluation Results (Accuracy)<br />Accuracy<br />About 54.8% (17.0±7.9) [Floating-Menu] and 46.1% (14.3±5.0)  [Interactive...
Evaluation Results (Speed)<br />Speed<br />No statistically significant <br />Pearson's Correlation Coefficient measure<br...
Evaluation Results (post-task questionnaire)<br />Easiness<br />About 60% (18.6±0.5) [Floating-Menu] and about 43% (13.3±4...
Evaluation Results (post-app. & study questionnaire)<br />Learnability<br />About 67% and 51% of the participants rated th...
Discussion<br />Two interface tools, Floating-Menu and Interactive-Icon, perform similarly both quantitatively and qualita...
Q&A<br />Charlotte Visualization Center<br />UNC Charlotte<br />dhjeong@uncc.edu<br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Comparative Evaluation of Two Interface Tools in Performing Visual Analytics Tasks.

303

Published on

Presenter: Dong Hyun Jeong, William Ribarsky, Tera Green, Remco Chang
BELIV 2010 Workshop
http://www.beliv.org/beliv2010/

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
303
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Comparative Evaluation of Two Interface Tools in Performing Visual Analytics Tasks.

  1. 1. Comparative Evaluation of Two Interface Tools in Performing Visual Analytics Tasks<br />Dong Hyun Jeong*, Tera Marie Green†, William Ribarsky*, Remco Chang*<br />*Charlotte Visualization Center, UNC Charlotte†School of Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser University<br />
  2. 2. Motivation<br />Human interaction & flow of cognition<br />Important for problem solving<br />“Visualization design should avoid, as much as possible, menus or other actions that take the user outside of the frame of the task” by Green et al. 2008<br />Previous Literatures<br />In visualization community, pull-down menus may require the human to sort through and think about menu items [Green et al.].<br />In HCI community, Not a clear difference between direct comparison between menu vs. direct manipulation icons [Lim et al.]<br />
  3. 3. Objective<br />To show the effectiveness of two interface tools, Floating-Menu and Interactive-Icon, on a highly interactive visual analytics tool.<br />A comparative evaluation<br />Quantitative and Qualitative evaluation to find the differences between the two.<br />
  4. 4. A Visual Analytics Tool<br />A visual analytics tool<br />A genomic visualization (called GVis).<br />Uses publicly available biological database (GenBank) by NCIBI (the National Center for Biotechnology Information).<br />System overview<br />Floating-Menu<br />Interactive-Icon<br />
  5. 5. Information Representation<br />Representing information corresponding to each option selection<br /># of published articles<br />Year information about the publication<br />Titles of the publishing journals<br /># of matched results based on the search query<br />
  6. 6. Comparative Study<br />Within-subject study<br />College students<br />31 participants (twelve males and nineteen females)<br />Most participants are not familiar with visualization as well biology.<br />Tasks<br />Finding additional information (publications) related to specific organisms using the two interface tools.<br />
  7. 7. Evaluation Results (Accuracy)<br />Accuracy<br />About 54.8% (17.0±7.9) [Floating-Menu] and 46.1% (14.3±5.0) [Interactive-Icon] of the participants answered correctly.<br />Repeated Measures ANOVA<br />Accuracy difference is not statistically significant across the two interfaces (p=0.24)<br />
  8. 8. Evaluation Results (Speed)<br />Speed<br />No statistically significant <br />Pearson's Correlation Coefficient measure<br />A trend between the time spent and the difficulty of the task (r =.47, p<.0001).<br />
  9. 9. Evaluation Results (post-task questionnaire)<br />Easiness<br />About 60% (18.6±0.5) [Floating-Menu] and about 43% (13.3±4.0) [Interactive-Icon] of the participants reported all 3 tasks to be “easy” or “very easy”<br />Helpfulness<br />About 74% (23±3.6) [Floating-Menu] and about 65% (20±3.6) [Interactive-Icon] of the participants reported the tool to be “helpful” or “very helpful” in solving tasks.<br />
  10. 10. Evaluation Results (post-app. & study questionnaire)<br />Learnability<br />About 67% and 51% of the participants rated that Floating-Menu and Interactive-Icon were easy to use (“very easy” or “easy”).<br />Preference<br />No significant difference, but there was a gender difference.<br />like<br />comfortable<br />
  11. 11. Discussion<br />Two interface tools, Floating-Menu and Interactive-Icon, perform similarly both quantitatively and qualitatively.<br />Limitations of the comparative evaluation method.<br />Quantitative (Time & Accuracy) and Qualitative (Users’ feedback) are not good for evaluating on a highly interactive visual analytics tool.<br />Importance of preserving humans’ flow of cognition <br />Interactive-Icon might support well the human’s flow of cognition than Floating-Menu.<br />With the comparative evaluation, the difference between the two interface tools cannot be generalized.<br />
  12. 12. Q&A<br />Charlotte Visualization Center<br />UNC Charlotte<br />dhjeong@uncc.edu<br />
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×