The efficacy of stacked bar charts in supporting single-attribute and overall-attribute comparisons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stacked bar charts are a visualization method for presenting multiple attributes of data, and many visualization tools support these charts. To assess the efficacy of stacked bar charts in supporting attribute-comparison tasks, we conducted a user study to compare three types of stacked bar charts: classical, inverting, and diverging. Each chart type was used to visualize six attributes of data where half of the attributes have the characteristics of ‘lower better’ whereas the other half attributes are with ‘higher better.’ Thirty participants were asked to perform two types of comparison tasks: single-attribute and overall-attribute comparisons. We measured the completion time, error rate, and perceived difficulty of the comparison tasks. The results of the study suggest that, for overall-attribute comparisons, the inverting stacked bar chart was the most effective with regards to the completion time. The results also show that performing overall-attribute comparisons using the classical and diverging stacked bar charts required more time than performing single-attribute comparisons using these charts. Participants perceived the inverting and diverging stacked bar charts as easier-to-use than the classical stacked bar chart for overall-attribute comparisons. However, for single-attribute comparisons, all chart types delivered similar performance. We discuss how these findings can inform the better design of interactive stacked bar charts and visualization tools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".