Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Budthimedhee - Input2012


Published on

Kanjanee Budthimedhee on "Planning Support System interface: the study of an effective plan-making tool"

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Budthimedhee - Input2012

  1. 1. Effective Visualization Interfaces for Planning Support Systems: a formative study Kanjanee Budthimedhee, PhD.
  2. 2. Overview Background  Research Problem  Research Objective  Research Design Principles Discussion
  3. 3. Background: Research Problem Planning Support Systems (PSS)  Data  Model  Interface How to create effective visualization interfaces?
  4. 4. Background: Research Objective Literature  Cognitive quality of graphic components and tasks, Spatial relationship property between the components, and Human-computer interaction factors  Principles for effective visualization interfaces not articulated Objective  Derive principles for designing effective visualization interfaces
  5. 5. PSS Interface Effectiveness Making Plan involves Shaping Attention PSS must: Direct interest  Counter short term memory limit Maintain attention  Leverage influence of representation
  6. 6. Background: Research Method• Formative evaluation • Build various interface prototypes • Assess effectiveness and derive principles• Questions • What components are effective? • What layouts are effective? • How to direct interest & maintain engagement?
  7. 7. Background: Research Design Project PSS: Land-use Evaluation and impact Assessment Model (LEAM) Interface design evolved over three years Evaluators of interface effectiveness  LEAM colleagues  Planning students  Other stakeholders  LEAM, a scenario-based PSS simulates regional land-use change as a consequence of policy choices interacting with different economic and demographic futures
  8. 8. Data Nine prototypes Model Design For each, documented Objectives Data Technology  Design objectives  Data Component Layout  Technology  Interface components  Interface layout  Lessons learned Lesson Learned  Evaluation  Tradeoffs
  9. 9. Sample Data: Prototype5
  10. 10. PrinciplesInferences from the data Effective Components Effective Layout Other Principles
  11. 11. Principles: Effective Components Task  Local: Summarizing data and Showing trends  Global: Comparing point and pattern Data  Space  Time
  12. 12. Principles: Grid SummaryGraphic Local Globalrepresentation (One variable, Exact (Different variables, information) Relationship comparison)Non-spatial Static (One time) Dynamic (Different time)Spatial Static (One time) Dynamic (Different time)
  13. 13. Principles: Graphic RepresentationGraphic representation Local Global (One variable, Exact information) (Different variables, Relationship comparison)Non- Static -Separated bar -Description -Grouped bar or -Comparisonspatial (One time) or icon [or (summarizing icons -Alternatives Table chart] data) -2attributes: shape -Options -1attribute and texture/color -Relations used: shape or (Add dimension = (Comparing color see more Points and relationship) Patterns) (summarizing data) Dynamic -Line or Bars -Trends -Lines or bars -Comparison (Different -2attributes: (showing -3attributes: shape, -Alternatives time) shape and trends over texture/color, and -Options spatial time) spatial pattern -Relations pattern/location (Comparing Points and Patterns) (showing trends over time)
  14. 14. Principles: Graphic RepresentationGraphic representation Local Global (One variable, Exact (Different variables, Relationship information) comparison)Spatial Static -One-variable -Description -Map using different -Comparison (W/o time) map or One (summarizing texture or color -Alternatives object image data) for different -Options -2attributes: variables -Relations shape and -3attributes: shape, (Comparing location texture/color, and Points and location Patterns) (summarizing data) Dynamic -Summary map, -Aggregation -Multiple maps or -Comparison (W/ time) animated (summarizing Animated maps -Alternatives map or data) -3attributes: shape, -Options multiple (showing color/pattern and -Relations maps trends location (Comparing -3attributes: over time) Points and shape, Patterns) location, and (showing color/pattern trends over time)
  15. 15. Principles: Effective Layout Role of Media Role of Structure  Provide information about plan and its consequences  Help evaluate alternative land use policies  Display must be proximate  Display must be comparable
  16. 16. Principles: Layout & Media TechnologyExisting Paper Document Economy Population Housing/Resident Education/Social Service Transportation Environment
  17. 17. Principles: Layout & Media TechnologyExisting Electronic Document Text/Number Map Graph Land-use Change Economy -housing Economy -school -infrastructure Population Population Environment Environment
  18. 18. Principles: LayoutDisplaying Interrelationships between Drivers and Impacts Drivers Impact Trends Social Perception Economic (GDP) Congestion Population City Growth Energy CS Land-use Regulations -residential Economic Cost -commercial Ag. Preservation -industrial Infra costs River Bluff Hidden cost Investments Environment Ring Road Habitat FM New infrastructure Forest lost
  19. 19. Principles: Layout Comparing Alternatives Scenario1 vs 1 vs 2: Impact Scenario2: Grouped bar chartScenario1: driver Difference Map Impact descriptionScenario2: driver Text
  20. 20. Discussion: Wickens on LayoutProximity of: Drivers & Impacts
  21. 21. Discussion: Wickens on LayoutProximity of: Compare Policies
  22. 22. Discussion: Cleveland on LayoutAlign Scale: Comparison
  23. 23. Other principles Provide motivation Maintain engagement Provide functional flexibility  Experience / familiarity  Interface Complexity  Way-finding  Clarity & Transparency  Innovative surprise Maximum number of animals <100 100-200 200-500 > 500 No Data
  24. 24. Conclusion Bridgethe gap in PSS interface literature Improvement  Broader range of users/evaluators  More formative study of PSS development Future study  Experimental study of each principle  Aural media as an enhancement
  25. 25. Discussion: Tufte on Graphic Component Perhaps not Data : Ink Perhaps 1 piece of Data : 1 graphic Attribute
  26. 26. Discussion: Wickens on Graphic Component Proximity Memory limit -7+ chunks 3 attributes in one graphic make up 1 chunk