A Heuristic Approach for Dual Expert/End-User Evaluation of Guidance in Visual Analytics
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.
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 | 0.068 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".