Comparative Evaluation of Two Interface Tools in Performing Visual Analytics Tasks.
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes344 views
The document compares two interface tools, floating-menu and interactive-icon, used in a visual analytics tool called gvis for genomic visualization. The study involved 31 participants and found no statistically significant differences in accuracy or speed between the two interfaces; however, floating-menu received higher ratings in terms of easiness and helpfulness. The research highlights the importance of user cognition in interface design and suggests that conclusions from the evaluation may not be generalizable.
![MotivationHuman interaction & flow of cognitionImportant 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. 2008Previous LiteraturesIn 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.]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/22-belivjeong-100411130103-phpapp01/85/Comparative-Evaluation-of-Two-Interface-Tools-in-Performing-Visual-Analytics-Tasks-2-320.jpg)
![Evaluation Results (Accuracy)AccuracyAbout 54.8% (17.0±7.9) [Floating-Menu] and 46.1% (14.3±5.0) [Interactive-Icon] of the participants answered correctly.Repeated Measures ANOVAAccuracy difference is not statistically significant across the two interfaces (p=0.24)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/22-belivjeong-100411130103-phpapp01/85/Comparative-Evaluation-of-Two-Interface-Tools-in-Performing-Visual-Analytics-Tasks-7-320.jpg)
![Evaluation Results (post-task questionnaire)EasinessAbout 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”HelpfulnessAbout 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.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/22-belivjeong-100411130103-phpapp01/85/Comparative-Evaluation-of-Two-Interface-Tools-in-Performing-Visual-Analytics-Tasks-9-320.jpg)
Comparative Evaluation of Two Interface Tools in Performing Visual Analytics Tasks.
- 1. Comparative Evaluation of Two Interface Tools in Performing Visual Analytics TasksDong Hyun Jeong*, Tera Marie Green†, William Ribarsky*, Remco Chang**Charlotte Visualization Center, UNC Charlotte†School of Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser University
- 2. MotivationHuman interaction & flow of cognitionImportant 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. 2008Previous LiteraturesIn 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. ObjectiveTo show the effectiveness of two interface tools, Floating-Menu and Interactive-Icon, on a highly interactive visual analytics tool.A comparative evaluationQuantitative and Qualitative evaluation to find the differences between the two.
- 4. A Visual Analytics ToolA visual analytics toolA genomic visualization (called GVis).Uses publicly available biological database (GenBank) by NCIBI (the National Center for Biotechnology Information).System overviewFloating-MenuInteractive-Icon
- 5. Information RepresentationRepresenting information corresponding to each option selection# of published articlesYear information about the publicationTitles of the publishing journals# of matched results based on the search query
- 6. Comparative StudyWithin-subject studyCollege students31 participants (twelve males and nineteen females)Most participants are not familiar with visualization as well biology.TasksFinding additional information (publications) related to specific organisms using the two interface tools.
- 7. Evaluation Results (Accuracy)AccuracyAbout 54.8% (17.0±7.9) [Floating-Menu] and 46.1% (14.3±5.0) [Interactive-Icon] of the participants answered correctly.Repeated Measures ANOVAAccuracy difference is not statistically significant across the two interfaces (p=0.24)
- 8. Evaluation Results (Speed)SpeedNo statistically significant Pearson's Correlation Coefficient measureA trend between the time spent and the difficulty of the task (r =.47, p<.0001).
- 9. Evaluation Results (post-task questionnaire)EasinessAbout 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”HelpfulnessAbout 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)LearnabilityAbout 67% and 51% of the participants rated that Floating-Menu and Interactive-Icon were easy to use (“very easy” or “easy”).PreferenceNo significant difference, but there was a gender difference.likecomfortable
- 11. DiscussionTwo 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&ACharlotte Visualization CenterUNC Charlottedhjeong@uncc.edu