1 / 6

Show Me: Automatic Presentation for Visual Analysis

Show Me: Automatic Presentation for Visual Analysis. Jock Mackinlay, Pat Hanrahan, Chris Stolte to be presented at InfoVis 2007. Summary. Visual analysis process in Tableau: Analyst specifies each field via “Add to Sheet”.

martin-blake
Download Presentation

Show Me: Automatic Presentation for Visual Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Show Me: Automatic Presentation for Visual Analysis Jock Mackinlay, Pat Hanrahan, Chris Stolte to be presented at InfoVis 2007

  2. Summary • Visual analysis process in Tableau: • Analyst specifies each field via “Add to Sheet”. • Automatic Marks chooses a good/best viz based on characteristics of those fields • Show Me & Show Me Alternatives: • Developed to streamline the analysis process, focus on the user experience • Analyst selects many fields at once • Sees many valid visualizations • Analyst chooses the preferred

  3. Summary • Goal: Focus on the user experience to support the flow of visual analysis • Evaluation: • Informal– from customer feedback, employees • Semi-formal– used UI logs from beta testers and “active users” • Three conclusions: • Automatic Marks is mostly correct, 6.8% error rate • Skilled users are not using “Add to Sheet” • Show Me/Show Me Alternatives is modestly used • “We aren’t getting negative feedback about “Show Me”. If “Show Me” is being used by skilled users, then it must be at least kinda good.”

  4. Good Things • The software is described in good detail • The UI follows good principles • Quantity user data have been collected

  5. Room for Improvement • The paper required a lot of software description and definitions • The chart types really provided too much detail and could have been condensed • Who is the target audience– felt more like a user manual or white paper rather than a research paper • The evaluation 

  6. Discussion Topics • How to define the criteria for “Skilled Users” • How does this software support both novice and skilled users? • What kind of data could be captured that could support evaluating Show Me/SMA? • How can users be involved in improving the software? (Interviews vs. logging)

More Related