Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2407.14908

PREVis: Perceived Readability Evaluation for Visualizations

Abstract

We developed and validated an instrument to measure the perceived readability in data visualization: PREVis. Researchers and practitioners can easily use this instrument as part of their evaluations to compare the perceived readability of different visual data representations. Our instrument can complement results from controlled experiments on user task performance or provide additional data during in-depth qualitative work such as design iterations when developing a new technique. Although readability is recognized as an essential quality of data visualizations, so far there has not been a unified definition of the construct in the context of visual representations. As a result, researchers often lack guidance for determining how to ask people to rate their perceived readability of a visualization. To address this issue, we engaged in a rigorous process to develop the first validated instrument targeted at the subjective readability of visual data representations. Our final instrument consists of 11 items across 4 dimensions: understandability, layout clarity, readability of data values, and readability of data patterns. We provide the questionnaire as a document with implementation guidelines on osf.io/9cg8j. Beyond this instrument, we contribute a discussion of how researchers have previously assessed visualization readability, and an analysis of the factors underlying perceived readability in visual data representations.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Anne-Flore Cabouat, Tingying He, Petra Isenberg, Tobias Isenberg. 2024-07-20. PREVis: Perceived Readability Evaluation for Visualizations. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2024.3456318

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Are explainable AI (XAI) evaluation strategies aligned? Comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical evaluation measures using saliency maps

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

cs.HC

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC