A Heuristic Approach for Dual Expert/End-User Evaluation of Guidance in Visual Analytics
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
Guidance can support users during the exploration and analysis of complex data. Previous research focused on characterizing the theoretical aspects of guidance in visual analytics and implementing guidance in different scenarios. However, the evaluation of guidance-enhanced visual analytics solutions remains an open research question. We tackle this question by introducing and validating a practical evaluation methodology for guidance in visual analytics. We identify eight quality criteria to be fulfilled and collect expert feedback on their validity. To facilitate actual evaluation studies, we derive two sets of heuristics. The first set targets heuristic evaluations conducted by expert evaluators. The second set facilitates end-user studies where participants actually use a guidance-enhanced system. By following such a dual approach, the different quality criteria of guidance can be examined from two different perspectives, enhancing the overall value of evaluation studies. To test the practical utility of our methodology, we employ it in two studies to gain insight into the quality of two guidance-enhanced visual analytics solutions, one being a work-in-progress research prototype, and the other being a publicly available visualization recommender system. Based on these two evaluations, we derive good practices for conducting evaluations of guidance in visual analytics and identify pitfalls to be avoided during such studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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