arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
北美退伍军人节(Veterans Day),12 日无更新
arXiv 2103.01701cs.HC
收藏

交互是否通过可视化改善贝叶斯推理?

Does Interaction Improve Bayesian Reasoning with Visualization?

Ab Mosca, Alvitta Ottley, Remco Chang

摘要:

交互使用户能够有效地浏览大量数据,支持认知处理,并增加数据表示方法。然而,很少有人尝试以经验证明是否添加交互到静态可视化提高其功能超出流行的信念。在本文中,我们解决这个差距。我们使用一个经典的贝叶斯推理任务作为测试平台,用于评估是否允许用户与静态可视化交互可以提高他们的推理。通过两个众包的研究,我们表明,增加互动的静态贝叶斯推理可视化并没有提高参与者的准确性贝叶斯推理任务。在某些情况下,它可以显着减损它。此外,我们表明,潜在的可视化设计调制性能和高与低的空间能力的人不同的响应不同的交互技术和底层基础可视化。我们的工作表明,交互并不像我们通常认为的那样毫无疑问地好;一个设计良好的静态可视化可以与交互式可视化一样有效。

英文摘要:

Interaction enables users to navigate large amounts of data effectively, supports cognitive processing, and increases data representation methods. However, there have been few attempts to empirically demonstrate whether adding interaction to a static visualization improves its function beyond popular beliefs. In this paper, we address this gap. We use a classic Bayesian reasoning task as a testbed for evaluating whether allowing users to interact with a static visualization can improve their reasoning. Through two crowdsourced studies, we show that adding interaction to a static Bayesian reasoning visualization does not improve participants' accuracy on a Bayesian reasoning task. In some cases, it can significantly detract from it. Moreover, we demonstrate that underlying visualization design modulates performance and that people with high versus low spatial ability respond differently to different interaction techniques and underlying base visualizations. Our work suggests that interaction is not as unambiguously good as we often believe; a well designed static visualization can be as, if not more, effective than an interactive one.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑