Quantitative data visualization with interactive KDE surfaces
Proceedings of the 26th Spring Conference on Computer Graphics
Spatial autocorrelation-based information visualization evaluation
Proceedings of the 2012 BELIV Workshop: Beyond Time and Errors - Novel Evaluation Methods for Visualization
The "Map" in the mental map: Experimental results in dynamic graph drawing
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Progressive high-quality response surfaces for visually guided sensitivity analysis
EuroVis '13 Proceedings of the 15th Eurographics Conference on Visualization
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Spatialization displays use a geographic metaphor to arrange non-spatial data. For example, spatializations arecommonly applied to document collections so that document themes appear as geographic features such as hills. Many common spatialization interfaces use a 3-D landscape metaphor to present data. However, it is not clear whether 3-D spatializations afford improved speed and accuracy for user tasks compared to similar 2-D spatializations. We describe a user study comparing users’ ability to remember dot displays, 2-D landscapes, and 3-D landscapes for two different data densities (500 vs. 1000 points). Participants’ visual memory was statistically more accurate when viewing dot displays and 3-D landscapes compared to 2-D landscapes. Furthermore, accuracy remembering a spatialization was significantly better overall for denser spatializations. Theseresults are of benefit to visualization designers who are contemplating the best ways to present data using spatialization techniques.