Visualization interfaces designed for heterogeneous devices such as wall displays and mobile screens must be responsive to varying display dimensions, resolution, and interaction capabilities. In this paper, we report on two user studies of visual representations for large versus small displays. The goal of our experiments was to investigate differences between a large vertical display and a mobile hand-held display in terms of the data comprehension and the quality of resulting insights. To this end, we developed a visual interface with a coordinated multiple view layout for the large display and two alternative designs of the same interface – a space-saving boundary visualization layout and an overview layout – for the mobile condition. The first experiment was a controlled laboratory study designed to evaluate the effect of display size on the perception of changes in a visual representation, and yielded significant correctness differences even while completion time remained similar. The second evaluation was a qualitative study in a practical setting and showed that participants were able to easily associate and work with the responsive visualizations. Based on the results, we conclude the paper by providing new guidelines for screen-responsive visualization interfaces.
AndrewsCEndertANorthC. Space to think: large high-resolution displays for sensemaking. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, April2010, pp.55–64. New York, NY: ACM.
2.
AndrewsCNorthC. Analyst’s workspace: an embodied sensemaking environment for large, high-resolution displays. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on visual analytics science and technology, Seattle, WA, 14–19 October 2012, pp.123–131. New York, NY: IEEE.
3.
AmatriainXKuchera-MorinJHollererT, et al. The AlloSphere: immersive multimedia for scientific discovery and artistic exploration. IEEE Multimed2009; 16(2): 64–75.
4.
IsenbergPDragicevicPWillettW, et al. Hybrid-image visualization for large viewing environments. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2013; 19(12): 2346–2355.
5.
IsenbergPCarpendaleS.Interactive tree comparison for co-located collaborative information visualization. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2007; 13(6): 1232–1239.
6.
McGrathWBowmanBMcCallumD, et al. Branch-explore-merge: facilitating real-time revision control in collaborative visual exploration. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces, Cambridge, MA, November 2012, pp.235–244. New York, NY: IEEE.
7.
BadamSKElmqvistN. PolyChrome: a cross-device framework for collaborative web visualization. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces, Dresden, Germany, November 2014, pp.109–118. New York, NY: ACM.
8.
SadanaRStaskoJ. Designing and implementing an interactive scatterplot visualization for a tablet computer. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on advanced visual interfaces, Como, Italy, May 2014, pp.265–272. New York, NY: ACM.
9.
LangnerRHorakTDachseltR.VisTiles: coordinating and combining co-located mobile devices for visual data exploration. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2018; 24(1): 626–636.
10.
LeeBIsenbergPRicheNH, et al. Beyond mouse and keyboard: expanding design considerations for information visualization interactions. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2012; 18(12): 2689–2698.
11.
RobertsJCRitsosPDBadamSK, et al. Visualization beyond the desktop—the next big thing. IEEE Comput Graph Appl2014; 34(6): 26–34.
12.
WeiserM.The computer for the 21st century. Sci Am1991; 265(3): 94–104.
13.
ElmqvistNIraniP.Ubiquitous analytics: interacting with big data anywhere, anytime. Computer2013; 46(4): 86–89.
14.
IsenbergPElmqvistNScholtzJ, et al. Collaborative visualization: definition, challenges, and research agenda. Inf Vis2011; 10(4): 310–326.
15.
LeclaireJTabardA.R3s.js–towards responsive visualizations. In: Proceedings of the workshop on data exploration for interactive surfaces, Funchal, Portugal, 15–18 November 2015, pp.16–19.
16.
HeerJKongNAgrawalaM. Sizing the horizon: the effects of chart size and layering on the graphical perception of time series visualizations. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, April 2009, pp.1303–1312. New York, NY: ACM.
17.
JavedWMcDonnelBElmqvistN.Graphical perception of multiple time series. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2010; 16(6): 927–934.
18.
RobertsJC. State of the art: coordinated & multiple views in exploratory visualization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on coordinated and multiple views in exploratory visualization, Zurich, Switzerland, 2 July 2007, pp.61–71. New York, NY: IEEE.
19.
WangBaldonado MQWoodruffAKuchinskyA. Guidelines for using multiple views in information visualization. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on advanced visual interfaces, Palermo, Italy, May 2000, pp.110–119. New York, NY: ACM.
20.
GodinhoPIAMeiguinsBSMeiguinsASG, et al. PRISMA – a multidimensional information visualization tool using multiple coordinated views. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information visualization, Zurich, Switzerland, 4–6 July 2007, pp.23–32. New York, NY: IEEE.
21.
SarikayaACorrellMBartramL, et al. What do we talk about when we talk about dashboards?IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2018; 25(1): 682–692.
22.
JohnsonBShneidermanB. Tree-maps: a space-filling approach to the visualization of hierarchical information structures. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on information visualization, pp.284–291. New York, NY: IEEE.
23.
StaskoJZhangE. Focus+context display and navigation techniques for enhancing radial, space-filling hierarchy visualizations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on information visualization, Salt Lake City, UT, 9–10 October 2000, pp.57–65. New York, NY: IEEE.
24.
SaitoTMiyamuraHNYamamotoM, et al. Two-tone pseudo coloring: compact visualization for one-dimensional data. In: Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on information visualization, Minneapolis, MN, 23–25 October 2005, pp.173–180. New York, NY: IEEE.
25.
KeimDHaoMCLadischJ, et al. Pixel bar charts: a new technique for visualizing large multi-attribute data sets without aggregation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on information visualization, San Diego, CA, 22–23 October 2001, pp.113–120. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
26.
HaoMCDayalUKeimD, et al. A visual analysis of multi-attribute data using pixel matrix displays. In: Proceedings of SPIE visualization and data analysis, San Jose, CA, 2007, pp.1–9.
27.
KeimDA.Designing pixel-oriented visualization techniques: theory and applications. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2000; 6(1): 59–78.
28.
JavedWElmqvistN. Exploring the design space of composite visualization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE pacific symposium on visualization, Songdo, Korea (South), 28 February–2 March 2012, pp.1–8. New York, NY: IEEE.
29.
ElmqvistNHenryNRicheY, et al. Mélange: space folding for multi-focus interaction. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Florence, Italy, April 2008, pp.1333–1342. New York, NY: ACM.
30.
PlaisantCCarrDShneidermanB.Image-browser taxonomy and guidelines for designers. IEEE Softw1995; 12(2): 21–32.
31.
HornbækKBedersonBBPlaisantC.Navigation patterns and usability of zoomable user interfaces with and without an overview. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact2002; 9(4): 362–389.
32.
BezerianosABalakrishnanR. The vacuum: facilitating the manipulation of distant objects. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, April 2005, pp.361–370. New York, NY: ACM.
TheveninDCoutazJ. Plasticity of user interfaces: framework and research agenda. In: Proceedings of INTERACT, pp.110–117.
35.
CalvaryGCoutazJTheveninD, et al. A unifying reference framework for multi-target user interfaces. Interact Comput2003; 15(3): 289–308.
36.
TanDSGergleDScupelliP, et al. With similar visual angles, larger displays improve spatial performance. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, April 2003, pp.217–224. New York, NY: ACM.
37.
LiuCChapuisOBeaudouin-LafonM, et al. Effects of display size and navigation type on a classification task. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Toronto, ON, Canada, April 2014, pp.4147–4156. New York, NY: ACM.
38.
JakobsenMRHornbækK.Interactive visualizations on large and small displays: the interrelation of display size, information space, and scale. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2013; 19(12): 2336–2345.
39.
YostBHaciahmetogluYNorthC. Beyond visual acuity: the perceptual scalability of information visualizations for large displays. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, April 2007, pp.101–110. New York, NY: ACM.
40.
BadamSKElmqvistN.Visfer: camera-based visual data transfer for cross-device visualization. Inf Vis2019; 18: 68–93.
41.
HoffswellJLiWLiuZ. Techniques for flexible responsive visualization design. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, April 2020, pp.1–13. New York, NY: ACM.
42.
BadamSKAminiFElmqvistN, et al. Supporting visual exploration for multiple users in large display environments. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on visual analytics science and technology (VAST), Baltimore, MD, 23–28 October 2016, pp.1–10. New York, NY: IEEE.
43.
KisterUReipschlägerPMatulicF, et al. Bodylenses: embodied magic lenses and personal territories for wall displays. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops & surfaces, Madeira, Portugal, November 2015, pp.117–126. New York, NY: ACM.
44.
ChenY. Visualizing large time-series data on very small screens. In: Proceedings of the IEEE VGTC/Eurographics conference on visualization: short paper, Barcelona, Spain, 2017, pp.37–41. Goslar: The Eurographics Association.
45.
HorakTBadamSKElmqvistN, et al. When David meets Goliath: combining smartwatches with a large vertical display for visual data exploration. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, April 2018, pp.1–19. New York, NY: ACM.
46.
RedaKJohnsonAEPapkaME, et al. Effects of display size and resolution on user behavior and insight acquisition in visual exploration. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, April 2015, pp.2759–2768. New York, NY: ACM.
47.
CockburnAKarlsonABedersonBB.A review of overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces. ACM Comput Surv2009; 41(1): 1–31.
48.
ElmqvistNYiJS.Patterns for visualization evaluation. Inf Vis2015; 14(3): 250–269.
49.
RobertsonGCameronKCzerwinskiM, et al. Animated visualization of multiple intersecting hierarchies. Inf Vis2002; 1(1): 50–65.
50.
HeerJRobertsonG.Animated transitions in statistical data graphics. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2007; 13(6): 1240–1247.
51.
CummingG.The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci2014; 25(1): 7–29.
FurnasGW. Generalized fisheye views. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, April 1986, pp.16–23. New York, NY: ACM.
57.
ChungFLFuTCLukR, et al. Flexible time series pattern matching based on perceptually important points. In: Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence workshop on learning from temporal and spatial data, Seattle, WA, 4–10 August 2001, pp.1–7.
