Chapter 5: Can Additional Representations in Map-based Visualizations Enhance Sensemaking
5.6 Summary and Conclusions
This paper has presented VICOLEX, a visualization prototype intended to support sensemaking activities in the context of collection understanding. The focus of this paper has been to investigate how well dynamically generated additional representations in VICOLEX can support users’ understanding of a georeferenced collection.
The additional representations used in VICOLEX include: (1) scatter plots that show book sizes and languages in collections; (2) pie charts that show languages in collections; (3) colour-coded
histograms of years of publication that divide years of publication into different historical periods; (4) KMs that show subjects in collections; (5) embedded maps that show places of publication of
collections; and (6) tag clouds that show lists of authors in collections.
A qualitative exploratory study of VICOLEX’s representations was conducted using a think- aloud protocol, an interview, and a questionnaire in an experimental setting. The study was not conducted to test the usability of VICOLEX. Rather it was a study about a conceptual idea of using additional representations for representing collections. Although the sample size was not large enough to make conclusive statements about the general population, the study found that all participants thought that additional representations enhanced their understanding of collections. Furthermore, the findings of this study suggest that additional representations can support understanding of collections published in foreign languages. Although the insights of non-experts in Slavic languages and history may not be as good as expert users, the non-expert users were able to gain an understanding of the collection through interaction with the representations; the representations made them think and generate questions and hypotheses.
178
The study shows that each of the representations in VICOLEX supported and enhanced the participants’ understanding of different aspects of collections, some in significant ways and others less so. Scatter plots informed users of the average size of the collection as well as oversized and extra small publications. Pie charts informed participants of the languages in the collections. Colour-coded
histograms of years of publication helped users understand the history of disciplines as well as social, economic, and historical changes in locations. KMs helped users understand some trends in subjects in the collections of different locations. Embedded maps of places of publication helped users identify the locations of publishers, authors, and collaborators, and learn something about the flow of immigration. The tag clouds of author lists informed users about the most prolific authors in the collection.
This research suggests that additional representations linked to locations can enhance exploration and discovery of different aspects of library collections. Although this study cannot generalize beyond the techniques and the topic it examined, it suggests that additional representations can improve understanding of georeferenced collections. Perhaps the most important conclusion drawn from this study is that different representations support and enhance different mental activities. This study suggests that, when given different visual representations of data, users will use them to engage in exploration, hypothesis generation, and reasoning about different aspects of the underlying collections, their locations, and the representations themselves. These types of sensemaking activities need different external support structures and processes, which must be provided by map-based visualizations of library collections. Combined and integrated together, the additional representations generated from knowledge organization systems can allow users to not only explore and understand the structure and properties of collections, which are otherwise not visible in catalogues and simple map-based
visualizations, but also make inferences and develop an understanding of the geographic locations the collections are about. Moreover, additional representations make geographic knowledge visible not only to expert users, but also novice users, including users who do not understand the language of the
179
collection. Further research is needed in long-term studies to determine the effectiveness of VICOLEX for visualizing other types of collections.
180
5.7 References
Ahonen-Rainio, P. (2005). Visual representation of geospatial metadata in the process of selecting datasets. 22nd International Cartographic Conference ICC2005.
Ahonen-Rainio, P. (2005). Visualization of Geospatial Metadata for Selecting Geographic Datasets.
Unpublished dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Science in Technology, Helsinki University of Technology , Espoo, Finland.
Andrienko, N., Andrienko, G., Voss, H., Bernardo, F., Hipolito, J., & Kretchmer, U. (2002). Testing the usability of interactive maps in CommonGIS. Cartographicand Geographic Information Science, 29
(4), 325-342.
Bainbridge, D., Cunningham, S., & Downie, J. (2004). Visual collaging of music in a digital library.
Proceedings: Fifth International Conference on Music Information Retrieval. ISMIR 2004.
Black, F. (2010). Construing the spaces of print culture: Book historians’ visualization preferences. In O. M., & C. Withers (Eds.), Geographies of the Book (pp. 79-108). Farnham, UK: Ashgate Press. Buchel, O., & Sedig, K. (2011). Extending Map-Based Visualizations to Support Visual Tasks: The Role of Ontological Properties. Knowledge Organization (May).
Buchel, O., & Sedig, K. (revised and resubmitted). Making Sense of Document Collections with Map- Based Visualizations: the Role of Interaction. Information Research.
Card, S. K., Mackinlay, J. D., & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
Chang, M., Legett, J., Furuta, R., Kerne, A., J.P., W., Burns, S., et al. (2004). Collection Understanding.
JCDL '04. Tucson, AR.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria.
Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.
Cunningham, S., & Bennett, E. (2008). Understanding Collection Understanding with Collage. ICADL, 2008, LNCS 5362, pp. 367-370.
Edsall, R. M. (2001). Interacting with space and time: desigining dynamic geovisualization environments. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. Erickson, T. (1995). Notes on Design Practice: Stories and Prototypes as Catalysts for Communication.
In Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development. New York, NY:
181
Hilliges, O., Holzer, P., Klüber, R., & Butz, A. (2006). AudioRadar: A Metaphorical Visualization for the Navigation of Large Music Collections. In Smart Graphics (Vols. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4073, pp. 82-92).
Jonassen, D., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. (1999). Task Analysis Methods for Instructional Design.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kobsa, A. (2001). An Empirical Comparison of Three Commercial Information Visualization Systems.
Proceedings of InfoVis 2001, IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization. San Diego, CA. Krug, S. (2006). Don't make me think! A common sense approach to Web usability.
Berkeley, Calif: New Riders Pub.
Mirel, B. (2007). Usability and usefulness in bioinformatics: evaluating a tool for querying and analyzing protein interactions based on scientists' actual research questions . IEEE International Professional Communication Conference.
Nielsen, J. (2009, May 11). Top 10 Information Architecture Mistakes. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from useit.com: usable information technology : http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ia-mistakes.html
Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Peuquet, D. J. (2002). Representations of space and time. New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Plaisant, C. (2004). The challenge of information visualization evaluation. IEEE Proceedings of Advanced Visual Interfaces.
Sasse, M. (1991). How to t(r)ap user’s mental models. In M. Tauber, & D. Ackerman (Eds.), Mental models and human-computer interaction, 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2006). Strategies for Evaluating Information Visualization Tools: Multi-dimensional In-depth Long-term Case Studies. Proceedings of the BELIV’06 workshop, Advanced Visual Interfaces Conference 2006, Venice.
Slaney, M., & Russel, D. (2005). Measuring Information Understadning in Large Document Collections.
Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
van Gulik, R., Vignoli, F., & van de Wetering, H. (2004). Mapping music in the palm of your hand, explore and discover your collection. ISMIR.
Vessey, I. (1991). Cognitive fit: A theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decision Sciences, 22 (2), 219-240.
Wassink, I., Kulyk, O., van Dijk, B., vad der Veer, G., & van der Vet, P. (2008). Applying a user- centered appraoch to interactive visualization design. In Trends in Interactive Visualization. Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing. London: Springer Verlag.
182