Struggles and Strategies in Understanding Information Visualizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the visualization community is increasingly aware that people often find visualizations difficult to understand, there is less information about what we need to do to create comprehensible visualizations. To help visualization creators and designers improve their visualizations, we need to better understand what kind of support people are looking for in their sensemaking process. Empirical studies are needed to tease apart the details of what makes the process of understanding difficult for visualization viewers. We conducted a qualitative study with 14 participants, observing them as they described how they were trying to make sense of 20 information visualizations. We identified the challenges participants faced throughout their sensemaking process and the strategies they employed to help themselves in overcoming the challenges. Our findings show how details and nuances within visualizations can impact comprehensibility and offer research suggestions to help us move toward more understandable visualizations.
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 | 0.046 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".