Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Magic lens based focus+context techniques are powerful means for exploring document spatializations. Typically, they only offer additional summarized or abstracted views on focused documents. As a consequence, users might miss important information that is either not shown in aggregated form or that never happens to get focused. In this work, we present the design process and user study results for improving a magic lens based document exploration approach with exemplary visual quality cues to guide users in steering the exploration and support them in interpreting the summarization results. We contribute a thorough analysis of potential sources of information loss involved in these techniques, which include the visual spatialization of text documents, user-steered exploration, and the visual summarization. With lessons learned from previous research, we highlight the various ways those information losses could hamper the exploration. Furthermore, we formally define measures for the aforementioned different types of information losses and bias. Finally, we present the visual cues to depict these quality measures that are seamlessly integrated into the exploration approach. These visual cues guide users during the exploration and reduce the risk of misinterpretation and accelerate insight generation. We conclude with the results of a controlled user study and discuss the benefits and challenges of integrating quality guidance in exploration techniques. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2020 | 10.1109/TVCG.2019.2895073 | IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
Visualization,Loss measurement,Lenses,Data visualization,Two dimensional displays,Uncertainty,Text analysis | Computer vision,Computer science,Human–computer interaction,Artificial intelligence | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
26 | 8 | 1077-2626 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
1 | 0.35 | 24 |
Authors | ||
6 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qi Han | 1 | 11 | 4.90 |
| Dennis Thom | 2 | 178 | 10.72 |
| Markus John | 3 | 5 | 4.77 |
| Steffen Koch | 4 | 341 | 26.58 |
| Florian Heimerl | 5 | 252 | 15.26 |
| Thomas Ertl | 6 | 4417 | 401.52 |