Toward Mixed Method Evaluations of Scientific Visualizations and Design Process as an Evaluation Tool.

Bret Jackson, Dane Coffey, Lauren Thorson, David Schroeder, Arin M Ellingson, David J Nuckley, Daniel F Keefe
{"title":"Toward Mixed Method Evaluations of Scientific Visualizations and Design Process as an Evaluation Tool.","authors":"Bret Jackson,&nbsp;Dane Coffey,&nbsp;Lauren Thorson,&nbsp;David Schroeder,&nbsp;Arin M Ellingson,&nbsp;David J Nuckley,&nbsp;Daniel F Keefe","doi":"10.1145/2442576.2442580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this position paper we discuss successes and limitations of current evaluation strategies for scientific visualizations and argue for embracing a mixed methods strategy of evaluation. The most novel contribution of the approach that we advocate is a new emphasis on employing design processes as practiced in related fields (e.g., graphic design, illustration, architecture) as a formalized mode of evaluation for data visualizations. To motivate this position we describe a series of recent evaluations of scientific visualization interfaces and computer graphics strategies conducted within our research group. Complementing these more traditional evaluations our visualization research group also regularly employs sketching, critique, and other design methods that have been formalized over years of practice in design fields. Our experience has convinced us that these activities are invaluable, often providing much more detailed evaluative feedback about our visualization systems than that obtained via more traditional user studies and the like. We believe that if design-based evaluation methodologies (e.g., ideation, sketching, critique) can be taught and embraced within the visualization community then these may become one of the most effective future strategies for both formative and summative evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":92124,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2012 BELIV Workshop : beyond time and errors - novel evaluation methods for visualization : Seattle WA, USA - October 14-15, 2012. BELIV (Conference) (2012 : Seattle, Wash.)","volume":"2012 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1145/2442576.2442580","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2012 BELIV Workshop : beyond time and errors - novel evaluation methods for visualization : Seattle WA, USA - October 14-15, 2012. BELIV (Conference) (2012 : Seattle, Wash.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2442576.2442580","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

In this position paper we discuss successes and limitations of current evaluation strategies for scientific visualizations and argue for embracing a mixed methods strategy of evaluation. The most novel contribution of the approach that we advocate is a new emphasis on employing design processes as practiced in related fields (e.g., graphic design, illustration, architecture) as a formalized mode of evaluation for data visualizations. To motivate this position we describe a series of recent evaluations of scientific visualization interfaces and computer graphics strategies conducted within our research group. Complementing these more traditional evaluations our visualization research group also regularly employs sketching, critique, and other design methods that have been formalized over years of practice in design fields. Our experience has convinced us that these activities are invaluable, often providing much more detailed evaluative feedback about our visualization systems than that obtained via more traditional user studies and the like. We believe that if design-based evaluation methodologies (e.g., ideation, sketching, critique) can be taught and embraced within the visualization community then these may become one of the most effective future strategies for both formative and summative evaluations.

科学可视化与设计过程的混合评价方法研究
在这篇立场文件中,我们讨论了目前科学可视化评估策略的成功和局限性,并主张采用混合方法的评估策略。我们提倡的这种方法最新颖的贡献是强调在相关领域(例如,平面设计、插图、建筑)中使用设计过程作为数据可视化评估的形式化模式。为了激励这个职位,我们描述了一系列最近在我们的研究小组内进行的科学可视化界面和计算机图形策略的评估。作为这些传统评估的补充,我们的可视化研究小组还定期使用草图、评论和其他设计方法,这些方法在设计领域的实践中已经形式化了多年。我们的经验使我们相信,这些活动是无价的,通常提供更多的详细的评估反馈,我们的可视化系统比通过更传统的用户研究等获得。我们相信,如果基于设计的评估方法(例如,构思,草图,评论)可以在可视化社区中教授和接受,那么这些可能成为未来形成性和总结性评估最有效的策略之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信