Constructing visual representations: Investigating the use of tangible tokens

IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics

Volumn 20, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 2102-2111

  Huron, Samuel ^a   Jansen, Yvonne ^b   Carpendale, Sheelagh ^c  

^a INRIA   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Constructive visualization; Dynamic visualization; Empirical study; Information visualization; Novices; Physical visualization; Token; Visual analytics; Visual mapping; Visualization authoring; Visualization construction

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION ANALYSIS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MAPPING;

CONSTRUCTIVE VISUALIZATION; DYNAMIC VISUALIZATION; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; INFORMATION VISUALIZATION; NOVICE; PHYSICAL VISUALIZATION; TOKEN; VISUAL ANALYTICS; VISUAL MAPPING; VISUALIZATION AUTHORING; VISUALIZATION CONSTRUCTION;

VISUALIZATION;

ADULT; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; DEVICES; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION SCIENCE; MALE; PROCEDURES; TASK PERFORMANCE; TOUCH; VISION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; DATA DISPLAY; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMATICS; MALE; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TOUCH; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84910041516     PISSN: 10772626     EISSN: 19410506     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346292     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Google Chart Editor. Last access: 10 Dec. 2013. https://support.google.com/drive/answer/63824.
2. SpotFire. Last access: 10 Dec. 2013. http://www.spotfire.com.
3. Tableau Public. Last access: 23 March 2014. http://www.tableausoftware.com/public.
4. Tableau. Last access: 12 July 2013. http://www.tableausoftware.com.
5. D. F. M. M. Alex Bigelow, Steven Drucker. Reflections on how designersdesign with data. In Proc. of the ACM International Conference onAdvanced Visual Interfaces (AVI). ACM, 2014.
6. A. L. Alter and D. M. Oppenheimer. Uniting the tribes of fluency toform a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review,13(3):219-235, 2009.
7. C. Andrews, A. Endert, and C. North. Space to think: large highresolutiondisplays for sensemaking. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 55-64. ACM,2010.
8. R. Arnheim. Visual thinking. UofC Press, 1969.
9. J. Bertin. Sémiologie graphique. Mouton; Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1973.
10. M. Bostock, V. Ogievetsky, and J. Heer. D3 data-driven documents. IEEE TVCG, 17(12):2301-2309, 2011.
11. N. Brosterman, K. Togashi, and E. Himmel. Inventing kindergarten.1997.
12. S. K. Card, J. D. Mackinlay, and B. Shneiderman. Readings in informationvisualization: using vision to think. Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.
13. M. S. T. Carpendale. A framework for elastic presentation space. PhDthesis, Simon Fraser University, 1999.
14. W. O. Chao, T. Munzner, and M. van de Panne. Poster: Rapid pen-centricauthoring of improvisational visualizations with napkinvis. Posters Compendium Info Vis, 2010.
15. W. Cleveland and R. McGill. Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation,and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical, 1984.
16. CMU&Intel Research. Claytronics video. tinyurl.com/claytronics, 2006. [accessed 2013-03-30].
17. L. Cosmides and J. Tooby. Are humans good intuitive statisticians afterall? rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment underuncertainty. Cognition, 58(1):1-73, 1996.
18. J. W. Creswell. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosingamong five approaches. Sage, 2012.
19. S. Douglas, C. Hundhausen, and D. McKeown. Toward empiricallybasedsoftware visualization languages. In Visual Languages, Proceedings.,11th IEEE International, pages 342-349. IEEE, 1995.
20. J. Fekete. The infovis toolkit. In Information Visualization, 2004. INFOVIS2004. IEEE Symposium on, pages 167-174, 2004.
21. F. W. Froebel. The education of man. New York: D. Appleton & Company(Original work published 1826), 1887/1974.
22. D. Gabel and R. Sherwood. The effect of student manipulation of molecularmodels on chemistry achievement according to piagetian level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(1):75-81, 1980.
23. K. Gilpin, A. Knaian, and D. Rus. Robot pebbles: One centimeter modulesfor programmable matter through self-disassembly. In IEEE InternationalConference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2485-2492. IEEE, 2010.
24. J. D. Gobert and J. J. Clement. Effects of student-generated diagrams versusstudent-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causaland dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of research in scienceteaching, 36(1):39-53, 1999.
25. L. Grammel, C. Bennett, M. Tory, and M.-A. Storey. A Survey of Visualization Construction User Interfaces. In EuroVis-Short Papers, pages 19-23. The Eurographics Association, 2013.
26. L. Grammel, M. Tory, and M. Storey. How information visualizationnovices construct visualizations. IEEE TVCG, 16(6):943-952, 2010.
27. T. R. G. Green and M. Petre. Usability analysis of visual programmingenvironments: a cognitive dimensions framework. Journal of Visual Languages& Computing, 7(2):131-174, 1996.
28. J. Heer, S. K. Card, and J. A. Landay. Prefuse: A toolkit for interactiveinformation visualization. In Proc. of the SIGCHI, CHI '05, pages 421-430, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.
29. J. Heer and B. Shneiderman. Interactive dynamics for visual analysis.Queue, 10(2):30:30-30:55, 2012.
30. M. Hegarty. The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implicationsfor design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3):446-474, 2011.
31. S. Huron, S. Carpendale, A. Thudt, A. Tang, and M. Mauerer. Constructive Visualization. In ACM conference on Designing Interactive Systems in 2014, Vancouver, Canada, June 2014.
32. S. Huron, R. Vuillemot, and J.-D. Fekete. Towards Visual Sedimentation.In IEEE Vis Week 2012, Seattle, USA, 2012.
33. S. Huron, R. Vuillemot, and J.-D. Fekete. Visual sedimentation. IEEETVCG, 19(12):2446-2455, 2013.
34. Y. Jansen and P. Dragicevic. An Interaction Model for VisualizationsBeyond The Desktop. IEEE TVCG, 19(12):2396-2405, 2013.
35. H.-C. Jetter, J. Gerken, M. Zöllner, H. Reiterer, and N. Milic-Frayling.Materializing the query with facet-streams: a hybrid surface for collaborativesearch on tabletops. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference onHuman Factors in Computing Systems, pages 3013-3022. ACM, 2011.
36. C. Johnson, R. Moorhead, T. Munzner, H. Pfister, P. Rheingans, and T. S.Yoo. NIH/NSF visualization research challenges report. Los Alamitos,CA: IEEE, 2006.
37. D. Kirsh. Complementary strategies: Why we use our hands when wethink. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the CognitiveScience Society, pages 212-217. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah,NJ, 1995.
38. D. Kirsh. The intelligent use of space. Artificial intelligence, 1995.
39. S. Klum, P. Isenberg, R. Langner, J.-D. Fekete, and R. Dachselt. Stackables:combining tangibles for faceted browsing. In Proceedings of theInternational Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pages241-248. ACM, 2012.
40. J. Manning. Rediscovering Froebel: A call to re-examine his life & gifts.Early Childhood Education Journal, 2005.
41. D. Marr. Vision: A computational approach. San Francisco: Free-man& Co, 1982.
42. L. Micallef, P. Dragicevic, and J.-D. Fekete. Assessing the Effect of Visualizationson Bayesian Reasoning Through Crowdsourcing. IEEE TVCG,18(12):2536-2545, 2012.
43. Z. Pousman, J. Stasko, and M. Mateas. Casual information visualization:Depictions of data in everyday life. IEEE TVCG, 13(6):1145-1152, 2007.
44. C. Reas and B. Fry. Processing: a programming handbook for visualdesigners and artists, volume 6812. Mit Press, 2007.
45. H. Reijner et al. The development of the horizon graph. 2008.
46. J. M. Rzeszotarski and A. Kittur. Kinetica: Naturalistic multi-touch datavisualization. 2013.
47. D. Schmandt-Besserat. How writing came about. University of TexasPress Austin, 1996.
48. K. J. Schönborn and T. R. Anderson. The importance of visual literacyin the education of biochemists∗. Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyEducation, 34(2):94-102, 2006.
49. F. M. Shipman III, H. Hsieh, P. Maloor, and J. M. Moore. The visualknowledge builder: a second generation spatial hypertext. In Proceedingsof the 12th ACM conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pages 113-122. ACM, 2001.
50. P. Tarr. Pestalozzian and Froebelian Influences on Contemporary ElementarySchool Art. Studies in Art Education, 30(2):115-121, 2013.
51. B. Ullmer, H. Ishii, and R. J. K. Jacob. Token+constraint systems fortangible interaction with digital information. ACM TOCHI, 12(1):81-118, 2005.
52. B. Victor. Drawing Dynamic Visualizations Talk.Last access:12 July 2013. http://worrydream.com/#!/DrawingDynamicVisualizationsTalk.
53. F. Viegas, M. Wattenberg, F. van Ham, J. Kriss, and M. McKeon.Manyeyes: a site for visualization at internet scale. IEEE TVCG,13(6):1121-1128, 2007.
54. J. Walny, S. Carpendale, N. Riche, G. Venolia, and P. Fawcett. Visualthinking in action: Visualizations as used on whiteboards. IEEE TVCG,17(12):2508-2517, 2011.
55. J. Walny, B. Lee, P. Johns, N. Riche, and S. Carpendale. Understandingpen and touch interaction for data exploration on interactive whiteboards.IEEE TVCG, 18(12):2779-2788, 2012.
56. C. Ware. Information visualization: perception for design. Elsevier,2004.
57. J. S. Yi, R. Melton, J. Stasko, and J. A. Jacko. Dust & magnet: multivariateinformation visualization using a magnet metaphor. IV, 4(4):239-256,2005.