Showing Flow: Comparing Usability of Chord and Sankey Diagrams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chord and Sankey diagrams are two common techniques for visualizing flows. Chord diagrams use a radial layout with a single circular axis, and Sankey diagrams use a left-to-right layout with two vertical axes. Previous work suggests both strengths and weaknesses of the radial approach, but little is known about the usability and interpretability of these two layout styles for showing flow. We carried out a study where participants answered questions using equivalent Chord and Sankey diagrams. We measured completion time, errors, perceived effort, and preference. Our results show that participants took substantially longer to answer questions with Chord diagrams and made more errors; participants also rated Chord as requiring more effort, and strongly preferred Sankey diagrams. Our study identifies and explains limitations of the popular Chord layout, provides new understanding about radial vs. linear layouts that can help guide visualization designers, and identifies possible design improvements for both visualization types.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it