Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Comparative Evaluation of Two Interface Tools in Performing Visual Analytics Tasks.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

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

278
views

Published on

Presenter: Dong Hyun Jeong, William Ribarsky, Tera Green, Remco Chang …

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
278
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

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