Multivariate hierarchical data has an important role in many applications. To find the best visualisation that best fits a concrete data is crucial to explore and understand the relationships between the data. This paper proposes a categorisation – Elongated and Compact – of hierarchical data based on the inner shapes of the hierarchies, that is the connectivity degree of the internal nodes, the number of nodes, etc, that can be applied to any hierarchical data. Based on this taxonomy, we explore implicit and explicit layouts – Tree, Circle Packing, Force and Radial – to provide users with a complete view of the data. We hypothesise that Tree and Circle Packing fit with Elongated structures, and Force and Radial fit with Compact ones. In addition, we cluster multivariate features to embed them in the hierarchical layouts. Especially, we propose two different glyphs –one-by-one and all-in-one, and we bet for the one-by-one glyphs as the most suitable for showing the distribution of several features along with the hierarchical structures. To validate our hypotheses, we conducted a user study with 35 participants using a hate speech annotated corpus. This corpus comes from 4359 comments posted in online Spanish newspapers. The results indicated that users preferred the Tree layout over the other three layouts (Circle, Force, Radial) with both types of structures (EC and CC). However, when we focused the analysis only on Radial and Force layouts, both of them scored significantly higher with Compact than with Elongated data. Moreover, participants scored the one-by-one glyph higher than the all-in-one glyph, but the difference was not significant.
SchulzHJSchumannH.Visualizing graphs-a generalized view. In: Tenth international conference on information visualisation (IV’06), London, UK, 5–7 July 2006, pp.166–173. New York, NY: IEEE.
2.
HippisleyARTariqMChangD. Hierarchical data and the derivational relationship between words. In: Proceedings of the institute for research into cognitive sciences workshop on linguistic databases, 2001, pp.125–133. Philadelphia, PA: Penn University.
3.
OtsukaRYanoKSatoN. An organization topographic map for visualizing business hierarchical relationships. In: 2009 IEEE Pacific visualization symposium, Beijing, China, 20–23 April 2009, pp.25–32. New York, NY: IEEE.
4.
NCBI Resource Coordinators. Database resources of the national center for biotechnology information. Nucleic Acids Research2017; 45(D1): D7–D19.
5.
JotySCareniniGNgRT.Topic segmentation and labeling in asynchronous conversations. J Artif Intell Res2013; 47: 521–573.
6.
YangJWardMORundensteinerEA.Interactive hierarchical displays: a general framework for visualization and exploration of large multivariate data sets. Comput Graph2003; 27(2): 265–283.
7.
QinXLuoYTangN, et al. Making data visualization more efficient and effective: a survey. VLDB J2020; 29(1): 93–117.
SchulzHJ. Treevis.net: A tree visualization reference. IEEE Comput Graph Appl2011; 31(6): 11–15.
10.
ShneidermanB.The eyes have it: A task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: Kaufmann M (ed.) The Craft of Information Visualization. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2003, pp.364–371.
11.
WardMO.Multivariate data glyphs: Principles and practice. In: Handbook of Data Visualization. Berlin: Springer, 2008, pp.179–198.
12.
NobreCMeyerMStreitM, et al. The state of the art in visualizing multivariate networks. Comput Graph Forum2019; 38: 807–832.
13.
SchulzHJHadlakSSchumannH.The design space of implicit hierarchy visualization: a survey. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2011; 17(4): 393–411.
14.
MeeksE.D3. Js in Action: Data Visualization with JavaScript. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2017.
15.
DarziYYamateYYamadaT.Functree2: an interactive radial tree for functional hierarchies and omics data visualization. Bioinformatics2019; 35(21): 4519–4521.
16.
ArchambaultDMunznerTAuberD.Grouseflocks steerable exploration of graph hierarchy space. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2008; 14(4): 900–913.
17.
HoqueECareniniG.Convis: a visual text analytic system for exploring blog conversations. Comput Graph Forum2014; 33: 221–230.
18.
HuCCWeiHXChiMT. Shareflow: A visualization tool for information diffusion in social media. In: International conference on ubiquitous information management and communication. Cham: Springer, pp.563–581.
19.
McNuttAMKindlmannGL. Improving the scalability of interactive visualization systems for exploring threaded conversations. In: EuroVis (Posters). Portugal: The Eurographics Association, pp.53–55.
20.
BurchMVramuletAThiemeA, et al. Vizwick: a multiperspective view of hierarchical data. In: Proceedings of the 13th international symposium on visual information communication and interaction. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, pp.1–5.
KeimDA. Visual techniques for exploring databases. In: International conference on knowledge discovery in databases (KDD’97), Newport Beach, CA, USA, November 1997.
23.
KeimDAKriegelHP.Visualization techniques for mining large databases: A comparison. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng1996; 8(6): 923–938.
24.
WongPCBergeronRD.30 years of multidimensional multivariate visualization. Scientific Visualization1994; 2: 3–33.
25.
BezerianosAChevalierFDragicevicP, et al. Graphdice: A system for exploring multivariate social networks. Comput Graph Forum2010; 29: 863–872.
26.
CaoNSunJLinYR, et al. Facetatlas: multifaceted visualization for rich text corpora. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2010; 16(6): 1172–1181.
27.
El-AssadyMSevastjanovaRGippB, et al. NErex: named-entity relationship exploration in multi-party conversations. Comput Graph Forum2017; 36: 213–225.
28.
BorgoRKehrerJChungDH, et al. Glyph-based visualization: foundations, design guidelines, techniques and applications. In: Eurographics (state of the art reports), Girona: The Eurographics Association 2013, pp.39–63.
29.
DuFPlaisantCSpringN, et al. Visual interfaces for recommendation systems: finding similar and dissimilar peers. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol2019; 10(1): 1–23.
30.
XuJTaoYLinH, et al. Exploring controversy via sentiment divergences of aspects in reviews. In: 2017 IEEE pacific visualization symposium (PacificVis), Seoul, 18–21 April 2017, pp.240–249. New York, NY: IEEE.
31.
SunGTangTPengTQ, et al. Socialwave: visual analysis of spatio-temporal diffusion of information on social media. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol2018; 9(2): 1–23.
32.
El-AssadyMGoldVAcevedoC, et al. Contovi: Multi- party conversation exploration using topic-space views. Comput Graph Forum2016; 35: 431–440.
33.
JarvenpaaSL.The effect of task demands and graphical format on information processing strategies. Manage Sci1989; 35(3): 285–303.
34.
CarpendaleMST. Considering Visual Variables as a Basis for Information Visualisation. Calgary: University of Calgary, 2003.
35.
ZhengBSadloF. On the visualization of hierarchical multivariate data. In: 2021 IEEE 14th pacific visualization symposium (PacificVis), Tianjin, China, 19–21 April 2021, pp.136–145. New York, NY: IEEE.
36.
GortlerJSchulzCWeiskopfD, et al. Bubble treemaps for uncertainty visualization. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph2018; 24(1): 719–728.
37.
O’HandleyBWuYDuanH, et al. Treevisual: design and evaluation of a web-based visualization tool for teaching and learning tree visualization. In: Proceedings of American society for engineering education annual conference. 2022.
38.
StaskoJZhangE. Focus+ context display and navigation techniques for enhancing radial, space-filling hierarchy visualizations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization 2000 (INFOVIS 2000), 2000, pp.57–65. New York, NY: IEEE.
39.
KruskalJBLandwehrJM.Icicle plots: better displays for hierarchical clustering. Am Stat1983; 37(2): 162–168.
40.
Von LandesbergerTKuijperASchreckT, et al. Visual analysis of large graphs: state-of-the-art and future research challenges. Comput Graph Forum2011; 30: 1719–1749.
41.
WagemansJElderJHKubovyM, et al. A century of gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychol Bull2012; 138(6): 1172–1217.
42.
CheongSHSiYW.Force-directed algorithms for schematic drawings and placement: a survey. Inf Vis2020; 19(1): 65–91.
43.
TauléMArizaANofreM, et al. Overview of detoxis at iberlef 2021: detection of toxicity in comments in spanish. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural2021; 67: 209–221.
44.
KavazEPuigARodriguezI, et al. Data visualization for supporting linguists in the analysis of toxic messages. In: WSCG 2021, 29th international conference in central Europe on computer graphics, visualization and computer vision held in co-operation with the EUROGRAPHICS Association, 17–20 May 2021.
45.
BrunnströmKBarkowskyM.Statistical quality of experience analysis: on planning the sample size and statistical significance testing. J Electron Imaging2018; 27: 1–11.
46.
AnjardRP.Management and planning tools. Train Qual1995; 3: 34–37.
47.
ManningAAmareN. Visual design principles and effective sentence diagrams for the 21st century. In: 2014 IEEE international professional communication conference (IPCC), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 13–15 October 2014, pp.1–8. New York, NY: IEEE.
48.
BorgesJ.VisAC: an interactive tool for visual analysis of consanguinity in the ancestry of individuals. Inf Vis2022; 21(4): 354–370.
49.
HoffswellJLiWLiuZ. Techniques for flexible responsive visualization design. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, pp.1–13.
50.
SchreckTKeimDMansmannF. Regular treemap layouts for visual analysis of hierarchical data. In: Proceedings of the 22nd spring conference on computer graphics (SCCG ’06), 2006, pp.183–190. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
