Motion-Based Visual Encoding Can Improve Performance on Perceptual Tasks with Dynamic Time Series.

Dynamic data visualizations can convey large amounts of information over time, such as using motion to depict changes in data values for multiple entities. Such dynamic displays put a demand on our visual processing capacities, yet our perception of motion is limited. Several techniques have been shown to improve the processing of dynamic displays. Staging the animation to sequentially show steps in a transition and tracing object movement by displaying trajectory histories can improve processing by reducing the cognitive load. In this paper, We examine the effectiveness of staging and tracing in dynamic displays. We showed participants animated line charts depicting the movements of lines and asked them to identify the line with the highest mean and variance. We manipulated the animation to display the lines with or without staging, tracing and history, and compared the results to a static chart as a control. Results showed that tracing and staging are preferred by participants, and improve their performance in mean and variance tasks respectively. They also preferred display time 3 times shorter when staging is used. Also, encoding animation speed with mean and variance in congruent tasks is associated with higher accuracy. These findings help inform real-world best practices for building dynamic displays.

How Aligned are Human Chart Takeaways and LLM Predictions? A Case Study on Bar Charts with Varying Layouts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been adopted for a variety of visualizations tasks, but how far are we from perceptually aware LLMs that can predict human takeaways? Graphical perception literature has shown that human chart takeaways are sensitive to visualization design choices, such as spatial layouts. In this work, we examine the extent to which LLMs exhibit such sensitivity when generating takeaways, using bar charts with varying spatial layouts as a case study. We conducted three experiments and tested four common bar chart layouts: vertically juxtaposed, horizontally juxtaposed, overlaid, and stacked. In Experiment 1, we identified the optimal configurations to generate meaningful chart takeaways by testing four LLMs, two temperature settings, nine chart specifications, and two prompting strategies. We found that even state-of-the-art LLMs struggled to generate semantically diverse and factually accurate takeaways. In Experiment 2, we used the optimal configurations to generate 30 chart takeaways each for eight visualizations across four layouts and two datasets in both zero-shot and one-shot settings. Compared to human takeaways, we found that the takeaways LLMs generated often did not match the types of comparisons made by humans. In Experiment 3, we examined the effect of chart context and data on LLM takeaways. We found that LLMs, unlike humans, exhibited variation in takeaway comparison types for different bar charts using the same bar layout. Overall, our case study evaluates the ability of LLMs to emulate human interpretations of data and points to challenges and opportunities in using LLMs to predict human chart takeaways.

Same Data, Diverging Perspectives: The Power of Visualizations to Elicit Competing Interpretations.

People routinely rely on data to make decisions, but the process can be riddled with biases. We show that patterns in data might be noticed first or more strongly, depending on how the data is visually represented or what the viewer finds salient. We also demonstrate that viewer interpretation of data is similar to that of 'ambiguous figures' such that two people looking at the same data can come to different decisions. In our studies, participants read visualizations depicting competitions between two entities, where one has a historical lead (A) but the other has been gaining momentum (B) and predicted a winner, across two chart types and three annotation approaches. They either saw the historical lead as salient and predicted that A would win, or saw the increasing momentum as salient and predicted B to win. These results suggest that decisions can be influenced by both how data are presented and what patterns people find visually salient.

Polarizing Political Polls: How Visualization Design Choices Can Shape Public Opinion and Increase Political Polarization.

While we typically focus on data visualization as a tool for facilitating cognitive tasks (e.g. learning facts, making decisions), we know relatively little about their second-order impacts on our opinions, attitudes, and values. For example, could design or framing choices interact with viewers' social cognitive biases in ways that promote political polarization? When reporting on U.S. attitudes toward public policies, it is popular to highlight the gap between Democrats and Republicans (e.g. with blue vs red connected dot plots). But these charts may encourage social-normative conformity, influencing viewers' attitudes to match the divided opinions shown in the visualization. We conducted three experiments examining visualization framing in the context of social conformity and polarization. Crowdworkers viewed charts showing simulated polling results for public policy proposals. We varied framing (aggregating data as non-partisan "All US Adults," or partisan "Democrat" / "Republican") and the visualized groups' support levels. Participants then reported their own support for each policy. We found that participants' attitudes biased significantly toward the group attitudes shown in the stimuli and this can increase inter-party attitude divergence. These results demonstrate that data visualizations can induce social conformity and accelerate political polarization. Choosing to visualize partisan divisions can divide us further.

My Model is Unfair, Do People Even Care? Visual Design Affects Trust and Perceived Bias in Machine Learning.

Machine learning technology has become ubiquitous, but, unfortunately, often exhibits bias. As a consequence, disparate stakeholders need to interact with and make informed decisions about using machine learning models in everyday systems. Visualization technology can support stakeholders in understanding and evaluating trade-offs between, for example, accuracy and fairness of models. This paper aims to empirically answer "Can visualization design choices affect a stakeholder's perception of model bias, trust in a model, and willingness to adopt a model?" Through a series of controlled, crowd-sourced experiments with more than 1,500 participants, we identify a set of strategies people follow in deciding which models to trust. Our results show that men and women prioritize fairness and performance differently and that visual design choices significantly affect that prioritization. For example, women trust fairer models more often than men do, participants value fairness more when it is explained using text than as a bar chart, and being explicitly told a model is biased has a bigger impact than showing past biased performance. We test the generalizability of our results by comparing the effect of multiple textual and visual design choices and offer potential explanations of the cognitive mechanisms behind the difference in fairness perception and trust. Our research guides design considerations to support future work developing visualization systems for machine learning.

Vistrust: a Multidimensional Framework and Empirical Study of Trust in Data Visualizations.

Trust is an essential aspect of data visualization, as it plays a crucial role in the interpretation and decision-making processes of users. While research in social sciences outlines the multi-dimensional factors that can play a role in trust formation, most data visualization trust researchers employ a single-item scale to measure trust. We address this gap by proposing a comprehensive, multidimensional conceptualization and operationalization of trust in visualization. We do this by applying general theories of trust from social sciences, as well as synthesizing and extending earlier work and factors identified by studies in the visualization field. We apply a two-dimensional approach to trust in visualization, to distinguish between cognitive and affective elements, as well as between visualization and data-specific trust antecedents. We use our framework to design and run a large crowd-sourced study to quantify the role of visual complexity in establishing trust in science visualizations. Our study provides empirical evidence for several aspects of our proposed theoretical framework, most notably the impact of cognition, affective responses, and individual differences when establishing trust in visualizations.

The Role of Text in Visualizations: How Annotations Shape Perceptions of Bias and Influence Predictions.

This paper investigates the role of text in visualizations, specifically the impact of text position, semantic content, and biased wording. Two empirical studies were conducted based on two tasks (predicting data trends and appraising bias) using two visualization types (bar and line charts). While the addition of text had a minimal effect on how people perceive data trends, there was a significant impact on how biased they perceive the authors to be. This finding revealed a relationship between the degree of bias in textual information and the perception of the authors' bias. Exploratory analyses support an interaction between a person's prediction and the degree of bias they perceived. This paper also develops a crowdsourced method for creating chart annotations that range from neutral to highly biased. This research highlights the need for designers to mitigate potential polarization of readers' opinions based on how authors' ideas are expressed.

What Does the Chart Say? Grouping Cues Guide Viewer Comparisons and Conclusions in Bar Charts.

Reading a visualization is like reading a paragraph. Each sentence is a comparison: the mean of these is higher than those; this difference is smaller than that. What determines which comparisons are made first? The viewer's goals and expertise matter, but the way that values are visually grouped together within the chart also impacts those comparisons. Research from psychology suggests that comparisons involve multiple steps. First, the viewer divides the visualization into a set of units. This might include a single bar or a grouped set of bars. Then the viewer selects and compares two of these units, perhaps noting that one pair of bars is longer than another. Viewers might take an additional third step and perform a second-order comparison, perhaps determining that the difference between one pair of bars is greater than the difference between another pair. We create a visual comparison taxonomy that allows us to develop and test a sequence of hypotheses about which comparisons people are more likely to make when reading a visualization. We find that people tend to compare two groups before comparing two individual bars and that second-order comparisons are rare. Visual cues like spatial proximity and color can influence which elements are grouped together and selected for comparison, with spatial proximity being a stronger grouping cue. Interestingly, once the viewer grouped together and compared a set of bars, regardless of whether the group is formed by spatial proximity or color similarity, they no longer consider other possible groupings in their comparisons.