The nested blocks and guidelines model

Information Visualization

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 234-249

  Meyer, Miriah ^a   Sedlmair, Michael ^b   Quinan, P Samuel ^a   Munzner, Tamara ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Design studies; Nested model; Validation; Visualization

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACTING; FLOW VISUALIZATION; MAPPING; NETWORK SECURITY; TAXONOMIES;

ABSTRACTION LEVEL; DESIGN DECISIONS; DESIGN PROCESS; DESIGN STUDIES; VALIDATION; VISUALIZATION DESIGNS; VISUALIZATION RESEARCH; VISUALIZATION SYSTEM;

VISUALIZATION;

EID: 84943241635     PISSN: 14738716     EISSN: 14738724     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1473871613510429     Document Type: Review

References (71)

1. Card SK, Mackinlay JD and Shneiderman B. Readings in information visualization: using vision to think. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1999.
2. Heer J and Agrawala M. Software design patterns for information visualization. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2006; 12(5): 853-860.
3. Sedlmair M, Meyer M and Munzner T. Design study methodology: reflections from the trenches and the stacks. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2012; 18(12): 2431-2440.
4. Shneiderman B and Plaisant C. Strategies for evaluating information visualization tools: multi-dimensional in-depth long-term case studies. In: Proceedings of the AVI workshop on BEyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for information visualization (BELIV), Venice, 23-26 May 2006, pp. 1-7. New York: ACM.
5. Alexander C, Ishikawa S and Silverstein M. A pattern language: towns, buildings, constructions (Center for environmental structure Berkeley series). Berkeley, CA: Center for Environmental Structure series; New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.
6. Boehm BW. A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer 1988; 21(5): 61-72.
7. Céret E, Dupuy-Chessa S, Calvary G, et al. A taxonomy of design methods process models. Inform Software Tech 2013; 55(5): 795-821.
8. Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, et al. Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1994.
9. Jansen A and Bosch J. Software architecture as a set of architectural design decisions. In: Working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture (WICSA), Pittsburgh, PA, 6-10 November 2005, pp. 109-120. New York: IEEE.
10. Moreland K. A survey of visualization pipelines. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (TVCG) 2013; 19(3): 367-378.
11. Regli WC, Hu X, Atwood M, et al. A survey of design rationale systems: approaches, representation, capture and retrieval. Eng Comput 2000; 16(3-4): 209-235.
12. Royce WW. Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. In: Riddle WE (ed.) Proceedings of international conference on software engineering (ICSE). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1987, pp. 328-338.
13. Buchanan R. Wicked problems in design thinking. Des Issues 1992; 8(2): 5-21.
14. Fallman D. Design-oriented human-computer interaction. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference human factors in computing systems (CHI), Fort Lauderdale, FL, 5-10 April 2003, pp. 225-232. New York: ACM.
15. Rittel HW and Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 1973; 4(2): 155-169.
16. Schön DA. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
17. Simon HA. The structure of ill structured problems. Artif Intell 1973; 4(3-4): 181-201.
18. Simon HA. The sciences of the artificial. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
19. Munzner T. A nested model for visualization design and validation. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2009; 15(6): 921-928.
20. Chiu C-Y and Russell AD. Design of a construction management data visualization environment: a top-down approach. Automat Constr 2011; 20(4): 399-417.
21. Dillingham I, Mills B and Dykes J. Exploring road incident data with heat maps. In: Conference on geographic information science research UK (GISRUK), University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, 27-29 April 2011.
22. Munzner T, Barsky A and Williams M. Reflections on QuestVis: a visualization system for an environmental sustainability model. In: Hagen H (ed.) Scientific visualization: interactions, features, metaphors (Dagstuhl Follow-Ups), vol. 2. Dagstuhl: Dagstuhl Publishing, 2011, pp. 240-259.
23. Piringer H, Berger W and Krasser J. HyperMoVal: interactive visual validation of regression models for real-time simulation. Comput Graph Forum (Proceedings EuroVis) 2010; 29(3): 983-992.
24. Sedlmair M, Isenberg P, Baur D, et al. Cardiogram: visual analytics for automotive engineers. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference human factors in computing systems (CHI), Vancouver, BC, 7-12 May 2011, pp. 1727-1736. New York: ACM.
25. Spritzer AS and Freitas CMDS. Design and evaluation of magnetviz - a graph visualization tool. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (TVCG) 2012; 18(5): 822-835.
26. Kok P, Baiker M, Hendriks EA, et al. Articulated planar reformation for change visualization in small animal imaging. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings Vis) 2010; 16(6): 1396-1404.
27. Kang Y-ah and Stasko J. Characterizing the intelligence analysis process: informing visual analytics design through a longitudinal field study. In: IEEE conference visual on analytics science and technology (VAST), Providence, RI, 23-28 October 2011, pp. 21-30. New York: IEEE.
28. Sprague D and Tory M. Exploring how and why people use visualizations in casual contexts: modeling user goals and regulated motivations. Inform Visual 2012; 11(2): 106-123.
29. Chuang J, Ramage D, Manning CD, et al. Interpretation and trust: designing model-driven visualizations for text analysis. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference human factors in computing systems (CHI), Austin, TX, 5-10 May 2012, pp. 443-452. New York: ACM.
30. Conversy S, Chatty S and Hurter C. Visual scanning as a reference framework for interactive representation design. Inform Visual 2011; 10(3): 196-211.
31. Hullman J and Diakopoulos N. Visualization rhetoric: framing effects in narrative visualization. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2011; 17(12): 2231-2240.
32. Lam H, Bertini E, Isenberg P, et al. Empirical studies in information visualization: seven scenarios. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (TVCG) 2012: 18(9): 1520-1536.
33. Sedlmair M, Isenberg P, Baur D, et al. Information visualization evaluation in large companies: challenges, experiences and recommendations. Inform Visual 2011; 10(3): 248-266.
34. Wang X, Dou W, Butkiewicz T, et al. A two-stage framework for designing visual analytics system in organizational environments. In: IEEE conference on visual analytics science and technology (VAST), Providence, RI, 23-28 October 2011, pp. 249-258. New York: IEEE.
35. Auber D, Archambault D, Lambert RBA, et al. The tulip 3 framework: a scalable software library for information visualization applications based on relational data. Technical report, INRIA Research Report 7860, hal-00659880, version 1, 13 January 2012. Paris: INRIA.
36. Forbes AG, Höllerer Tand Legrady G. "behaviorism": a framework for dynamic data visualization. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2010; 16(6): 1164-1171.
37. Frick A, Ludwig A and Mehldau H. A fast adaptive layout algorithm for undirected graphs. In: Tamassia R and Tollis IG (eds) Proceedings of graph drawing (Volume 894 of LNCS). London: Springer, 1995, pp. 388-403.
38. Meyer M, Sedlmair M and Munzner T. The four-level nested model revisited: blocks and guidelines. In: Proceedings VisWeek workshop on BEyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for information visualization (BELIV), Seattle, WA, 14-15 October 2012. New York: ACM.
39. Meyer M, Munzner T and Pfister H. MizBee: a multi-scale synteny browser. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2009; 15(6): 897-904.
40. Micallef L, Dragicevic P and Fekete J. Assessing the effect of visualizations on Bayesian reasoning through crowdsourcing. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2012; 18(12): 2536-2545.
41. Amar R, Eagan J and Stasko J. Low-level components of analytic activity in information visualization. In: Proceedings of IEEE symposium on information visualization (InfoVis), Minneapolis, MN, 23-25 October 2005, pp. 111-117. New York: IEEE
42. Munzner T. Visualization. In: Shirley P and Marschner S (eds) Fundamentals of graphics. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: AK Peters, 2009, pp. 675-707.
43. Nielsen CB, Jackman SD, Birol I, et al. ABySS-Explorer: visualizing genome sequence assemblies. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2009; 15(6): 881-888.
44. Wattenberg M and Viegas FB. The word tree, an interactive visual concordance. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2008; 14(6): 1221-1228.
45. Van Ham F, Wattenberg M and Viegas FB. Mapping text with phrase nets. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2009; 15: 1169-1176.
46. Viegas FB, Wattenberg M and Feinberg J. Participatory visualization with wordle. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2009; 15(6): 1137-1144.
47. Levoy M. Display of surfaces from volume data. IEEE Comput Graph 1988; 8(3): 29-37.
48. Westover LA. Splatting: a parallel, feed-forward volume rendering algorithm. Technical report, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, July 1991.
49. Cabral B, Cam N and Foran J. Accelerated volume rendering and tomographic reconstruction using texture mapping hardware. In: Proceedings of symposium on volume visualization (VolVis), Tysons Corner, VA, 17-18 October 1994, pp. 91-98. New York: ACM.
50. Tory M, Sprague DW, Wu F, et al. Spatialization design: comparing points and landscapes. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2007; 13(6): 1262-1269.
51. Nocaj A and Brandes U. Computing Voronoi treemaps: faster, simpler, and resolution-independent. Comput Graph Forum 2012; 31(3pt1): 855-864.
52. Balzer M and Deussen O. Voronoi treemaps. In: Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on information visualization (InfoVis), Minneapolis, MN, 23-25 October 2005, pp. 49-56. New York: IEEE.
53. Ware C. Information visualization: perception for design. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann/Academic Press, 2004.
54. Gleicher M. Position paper: why ask why?: considering motivation in visualization evaluation. In: Proceedings of VisWeek workshop on BEyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for information visualization (BELIV), Seattle, WA, 14-15 October 2012. New York: ACM.
55. Heer J, Kong N and Agrawala M. Sizing the horizon: the effects of chart size and layering on the graphical perception of time series visualizations. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI), Boston, MA, 4-9 April 2009, pp. 1303-1312. New York: ACM.
56. Heer J and Bostock M. Crowdsourcing graphical perception: using mechanical turk to assess visualization design. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI), Atlanta, GA, 10-15 April 2010, pp. 203-212. New York: ACM.
57. Cleveland WS and McGill R. Graphical perception: theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J Am Stat Assoc 1984; 79(387): 531-554.
58. Beaudouin-Lafon M. Designing interaction, not interfaces. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on advanced visual interfaces (AVI), Gallipoli, 25-28 May 2004, pp. 15-22. New York: ACM.
59. Sedlmair M, Frank A, Munzner T, et al. RelEx: visualization for actively changing overlay network specifications. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2012; 18(12): 2729-2738.
60. Ghoniem M, Fekete J-D and Castagliola P. On the readability of graphs using node-link and matrix-based representations: a controlled experiment and statistical analysis. Inform Visual 2005; 4(2): 114-135.
61. Zinsmaier M, Brandes U, Deussen O, et al. Interactive level-of-detail rendering of large graphs. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2012; 18(12): 2486-2495.
62. Gansner E, Hu Y, North S, et al. Multilevel agglomerative edge bundling for visualizing large graphs. In: Pacific visualization symposium (PacificVis), Hong Kong, 1-4 March 2011, pp. 187-194. New York: IEEE.
63. Hurter C, Ersoy O and Telea A. Graph bundling by kernel density estimation (Proceedings EuroVis). Comput Graph Forum 2012; 31(3pt1): 865-874.
64. Frayling C. Research in art and design. London: Royal College of Art, 1993.
65. Koskinen I, Binder Tand Redström J. Lab, field, gallery, and beyond. Artifact 2008; 2(1): 46-57.
66. Zimmerman J, Stolterman E and Forlizzi J. An analysis and critique of research through design: towards a for-malization of a research approach. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on designing interactive systems, DIS '10, Aarhus, 16-20 August 2010, pp. 310-319. New York: ACM.
67. Margaria T. Web services-based tool-integration in the ETI platform. Softw Syst Model 2005; 4(2): 141-156.
68. Mackinlay JD. Presentation, visualization, what's next? In: InfoVis 2000 (Keynote Address), 2000.
69. Amar R and Stasko J. A knowledge task-based framework for the design and evaluation of information visualizations. In: Proceedings of IEEE symposium on information visualization (InfoVis), Austin, TX, 10-12 October 2004, pp. 143-149. New York: IEEE.
70. Brehmer M and Munzner T. A multi-level typology of abstract visualization tasks. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr (Proceedings InfoVis) 2013; 19(12): 2376-2385.
71. Noack A. An energy model for visual graph clustering. In: Tamassia R and Tollis IG (eds) Proceedings of graph drawing (Volume 2912 of LNCS). London: Springer-Verlag, 2003, pp. 425-436.