We present the design and evaluation of HyperStorylines, a technique that generalizes Storylines to visualize the evolution of relationships involving multiple types of entities such as, for example, people, locations, and companies. Datasets which describe such multi-entity relationships are often modeled as hypergraphs, that can be difficult to visualize, especially when these relationships evolve over time. HyperStorylines builds upon Storylines, enabling the aggregation and nesting of these dynamic, multi-entity relationships. We report on the design process of HyperStorylines, which was informed by discussions and workshops with data journalists; and on the results of a comparative study in which participants had to answer questions inspired by the tasks that journalists typically perform with such data. We observe that although HyperStorylines takes some practice to master, it performs better for identifying and characterizing relationships than the selected baseline visualization (PAOHVis) and was preferred overall.
MunroeR. XKCD #657: movie narrative charts, http://xkcd.com/657 (2009, accessed 27 July 2019).
2.
OgawaMMaKL. Software evolution storylines. In: Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on software visualization, Salt Lake City, UT, October 2010, p. 3542. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
3.
KimNWCardSKHeerJ. Tracing genealogical data with timenets. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced visual interfaces (AVI ’10), Roma, Italy, May 2010, p. 241248. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
4.
RedaKTantipathananandhCJohnsonA, et al. Visualizing the evolution of community structures in dynamic social networks. Comput Graph Forum2011; 30(3): 1061–1070.
5.
SilviaSEtemadpourRAbbasJ, et al. Visualizing variation in classical text with force directed storylines. In: Workshop on visualization for the digital humanities. IEEE VIS.
ValdiviaPBuonoPPlaisantC, et al. Analyzing dynamic hypergraphs with parallel aggregated ordered hypergraph visualization. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2021; 27: 1–13.
8.
SegelEHeerJ. Narrative visualization: telling stories with data. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2010; 16(6): 1139–1148.
9.
KongHKLiuZKarahaliosK. Frames and slants in titles of visualizations on controversial topics. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’18), Montreal, QC, Canada, April 2018, p. 112. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
10.
KongHKLiuZKarahaliosK. Trust and recall of information across varying degrees of title-visualization misalignment. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’19), p. 113. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
11.
RicheNHurterCDiakopoulosN, et al. Data-driven storytelling. AK peters visualization series. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, 2018. https://books.google.fr/books?id=qTOsnQAACAAJ
12.
BrehmerMIngramSStrayJ, et al. Overview: the design, adoption, and analysis of a visual document mining tool for investigative journalists. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2014; 20(12): 2271–2280.
13.
GlatzEMavromatidisSAgerB, et al. Visualizing big network traffic data using frequent pattern mining and hypergraphs. Computing2014; 96(1): 27–38.
KapecP. Visualizing software artifacts using hypergraphs. In: Proceedings of the 26th spring conference on computer graphics (SCCG ’10), Budmerice, Slovakia, May 2010, p. 2732. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
16.
XieCZhongWXuW, et al. Visual analytics of heterogeneous data using hypergraph learning. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol2019; 10(1): 1–26.
17.
FischerMTAryaDStreebD, et al. Visual analytics for temporal hypergraph model exploration. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2021; 27: 550–560.
18.
KangHPlaisantCLeeB, et al. Netlens: iterative exploration of content-actor network data. Inf Vis2007; 6(1): 18–31.
19.
OuvrardXGoffJLMarchand-MailletS. Networks of collaborations: Hypergraph modeling and visualisation. arXiv preprint arXiv: 170700115, 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00115
20.
BeckFBurchMDiehlS, et al. A taxonomy and survey of dynamic graph visualization. Comput Graph Forum2017; 36(1): 133–159.
21.
BachBPietrigaEFeketeJD. Graph diaries: animated transitions and temporal navigation for dynamic networks. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2014; 20(5): 740–754.
22.
RufiangeSMelançonG. Animatrix: A matrix-based visualization of software evolution. In: 2014 second IEEE working conference on software visualization, Victoria, BC, Canada, 29–30 September 2014, pp.137–146. New York: IEEE.
23.
GreilichMBurchMDiehlS. Visualizing the evolution of compound digraphs with time arc trees. Comput Graph Forum2009; 28(3): 975–982.
RufiangeSMcGuffinMJ. Diffani: visualizing dynamic graphs with a hybrid of difference maps and animation. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2013; 19(12): 2556–2565.
27.
TverskyBMorrisonJBBetrancourtM. Animation: Can it facilitate?Int J Hum Comput Stud2002; 57(4): 247–262.
TanahashiYMaKL. Design considerations for optimizing storyline visualizations. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2012; 18(12): 2679–2688.
30.
LiuSWuYWeiE, et al. Storyflow: tracking the evolution of stories. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2013; 19(12): 2436–2445.
31.
TanahashiYHsuehCHMaKL. An efficient framework for generating storyline visualizations from streaming data. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2015; 21(6): 730–742.
32.
LiuYLinHLiangY, et al. An application of optimization method for storyline based on cluster analysis. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, 2017, p.2428.
33.
TangTRubabSLaiJ, et al. Istoryline: effective convergence to hand-drawn storylines. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2018; 25(1): 769–778.
34.
TangTLiRWuX, et al. Plotthread: creating expressive storyline visualizations using reinforcement learning. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2021; 27(2): 294–303.
35.
ArendtDPirrungM. The “y” of it matters, even for storyline visualization. In: 2017 IEEE conference on visual analytics science and technology (VAST), Phoenix, AZ, 3–6 October 2017, pp.81–91. New York: IEEE.
36.
GhoniemMFeketeJDCastagliolaP. A comparison of the readability of graphs using node-link and matrix-based representations. In: IEEE symposium on information visualization, Austin, TX, 10–12 October 2004, pp.17–24. New York: IEEE.
37.
XuKRooneyCPassmoreP, et al. A user study on curved edges in graph visualization. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2012; 18(12): 2449–2456.
38.
ArafatNABressanS. Hypergraph drawing by force-directed placement. In: BenslimaneDDamianiEGroskyWI, et al. (eds) Database and expert systems applications. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp.387–394.
39.
ZhaoJGlueckMChevalierF, et al. Egocentric analysis of dynamic networks with egolines. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, May 2016, p.50035014. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
GörgCLiuZKihmJ, et al. Combining computational analyses and interactive visualization for document exploration and sensemaking in jigsaw. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2013; 19(10): 1646–1663.
AhnJWPlaisantCShneidermanB. A task taxonomy for network evolution analysis. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2014; 20(3): 365–376.
49.
AlsallakhBMicallefLAignerW, et al. The state-of-the-art of set visualization. Comput Graph Forum2016; 35(1): 234–260.
50.
KerracherNKennedyJChalmersK. A task taxonomy for temporal graph visualisation. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2015; 21(10): 1160–1172.
51.
AndrienkoNAndrienkoG. Exploratory analysis of spatial and temporal data: a systematic approach. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media, 2006.
BesançonLYnnermanAKeefeDF, et al. The state of the art of spatial interfaces for 3D visualization. Comput Graph Forum2021; 40: 293–326.
55.
CaineK. Local standards for sample size at chi. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, May 2016, pp.981–992. ACM.
56.
BacchettiP. Current sample size conventions: flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Med2010; 8(1): 17.
57.
DragicevicP. Fair statistical communication in HCI. In: RobertsonJKapteinM (eds) Modern statistical methods for HCI, chapter 13. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2016, pp.291–330.
58.
CummingG. The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci2014; 25(1): 7–29.
59.
BesançonLDragicevicP. The significant difference between p-values and confidence intervals. In: Proceedings of the conference on l’Interaction homme-machine, Poitiers, France, August-September 2017, pp.53–62.
60.
BesançonLDragicevicP. The continued prevalence of dichotomous inferences at CHI. In: Extended abstracts of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systemsScotland UK, May 2019, New York, NY: ACM.
61.
CockburnADragicevicPBesançonL, et al. Threats of a replication crisis in empirical computer science. Commun ACM2020; 63(8): 70–79.
62.
CummingG. Understanding the new statistics: effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge, 2013.
63.
KrzywinskiMAltmanN. Points of significance: error bars. Nat Methods2013; 10: 921–922.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
