Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Human Centric Visualization pp 373–390Cite as

Evaluating Overall Quality of Graph Visualizations Indirectly and Directly

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Visualization is one of the popular methods that are used to explore and communicate complex non-visual data. However, representing non-visual data in a visual form does not automatically make the process of exploration and communication effective. The same data can be visualized in many different ways and different visualizations affect the process differently. Therefore, it is important to have the resultant visualizations evaluated so that their quality in conveying the embedded information to the end users can be understood. In designing an evaluation study, at least three issues need to be addressed: what kind of quality is to be evaluated? What methods are to be used? And what measures are to be used? A range of methods and measurements have been used to evaluate visualizations in the literature. Overall quality is often considered as a multidimensional construct and the elements of the construct have limitations in evaluating overall quality. In this chapter, we introduce two one-dimensional measures. The first one is an indirect measure called visualization efficiency that is based on task performance and mental effort measures, while the second is a direct measure that is based on aesthetic criteria. These new measures take into consideration the elements of its corresponding multidimensional construct and combine them into a single value. We review related work, explain how these measures work and discuss user studies that were conducted to validate them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. H. C. Purchase, Experimental Human-Computer Interaction: A Practical Guide with Visual Examples. Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (July 23, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tuovinen, J. and Paas, F. (2004) Exploring Multidimensional Approaches to the Efficiency of Instructional Conditions. Instructional Science, 32: 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. J. van Merrienboer and J. Sweller (2005) Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Development and Future Directions.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. Plaisant (2004) The Challenge of Information Visualization Evaluation. In Proc. the working conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI’04), 109–116.

    Google Scholar 

  5. C. Chen and M. Czerwinski (2000) Empirical Evaluation of Information Visualization: An Introduction. Int. J. Human-computer Studies, 53(5): 631–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wikipedia. Standard score. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_score. Accessed on 1/9/2012.

  7. Jeff Sauro. (2004)What’s a Z-Score and Why Use it in Usability Testing? http://www.measuringusability.com/z.htm. Accessed on 1/9/2012.

  8. H. C. Purchase, Metrics for graph drawing aesthetics, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 501–516, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. H. C. Purchase, R. F. Cohen, and M. James, Validating graph drawing aesthetics, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Graph Drawing (GD’95), Springer-Verlag, 1995, pp. 435–446.

    Google Scholar 

  10. H. C. Purchase, D. A. Carrington, J.-A. Allder: Empirical Evaluation of Aesthetics-based Graph Layout. Empirical Software Engineering 7(3): 233–255 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. W. Huang, S.-H. Hong, P. Eades, and C.-C. Lin, Improving Multiple Aesthetics Produces Better Graph Drawings. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  12. W. Huang, P. Eades, and S.-H. Hong, Measuring effectiveness of graph visualizations: a cognitive load perspective. Information Visualization, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 139–152, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. W. Huang, S.-H. Hong and P. Eades. 2006. How people read sociograms: a questionnaire study. In Proceedings of the 2006 Asia-Pacific Symposium on Information Visualisation (APVis’06), 199–206.

    Google Scholar 

  14. W. Huang, P. Eades, and S.-H. Hong, Effects of crossing angles. In Proceedings of the IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium 2008 (PacificVis’08), pp. 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  15. C. Ware, H. Purchase, L. Colpoys, and M. McGill, Cognitive measurements of graph aesthetics, Information Visualization, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 103–110, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. C. Korner and D. Albert, Speed of comprehension of visualized ordered sets, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8:57–71, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. S. Hachul and M. Junger, An experimental comparison of fast algorithms for drawing general large graphs, GD’05: 235–250.

    Google Scholar 

  18. W. Huang, S.-H. Hong and P. Eades: Layout effects: Comparison of sociogram drawing conventions. TR No.575, University of Sydney, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  19. W. Huang, S.-H. Hong and P. Eades: Predicting graph reading performance: a cognitive approach. APVIS 2006: 207–216.

    Google Scholar 

  20. W. Huang, C.C. Lin and M.L. Huang, An Aggregation-Based Approach to Quality Evaluation of Graph Drawings. The International Symposium on Visual Information Communication and Interaction (VINCI12), 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  21. C. Dunne, and B. Shneiderman, Improving graph drawing readability by incorporating readability metrics, TR No. HCIL2009-13, University of Maryland, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. Blythe, C. McGrath and D. Krackhardt: The effect of graph layout on inference from social network data. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Graph Drawing (GD’95), pp. 40–5 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  23. G. Di Battista, A. Garg, G. Liotta, R. Tamassia, E. Tassinari, and F. Vargiu. 1997. An experimental comparison of four graph drawing algorithms. Comput. Geom. Theory Appl. 7, 5–6 (April 1997), 303–325.

    Google Scholar 

  24. W. Didimo, G. Liotta, and S. A. Romeo. 2010. Topology-driven force-directed algorithms. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on Graph drawing (GD’10), 165–176.

    Google Scholar 

  25. M. Himsolt: Comparing and Evaluating Layout Algorithms within GraphEd. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 6(3): 255–273 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. M. Tory and T. Möller. 2004. Human Factors in Visualization Research. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 10, 1 (January 2004), 72–84.

    Google Scholar 

  27. U. Brandes, 2001. Drawing on physical analogies. In: Kaufmann, M., Wagner, D. (Eds.), Drawing Graphs: Methods and Models. Vol. 2025 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, pp. 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  28. G. di Battista, P. Eades, R. Tamassia and I. Tollis 1998. Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  29. U. Brandes and C. Pich, 2009. An experimental study on distance-based graph drawing. In: Proc. of 16th International Symposium on Graph Drawing (GD 2008). Vol. 5417 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, pp. 218–229.

    Google Scholar 

  30. P. Saraiya, C. North, V. Lam, K. Duca: An Insight-Based Longitudinal Study of Visual Analytics. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 12(6): 1511–1522 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. BELIV workshop. BEyond time and errors: novel evaLuation methods for Visualization. http://www.beliv.org/

  32. F. Paas and J. Van Merrienboer (1993) The Efficiency of Instructional Condition: An Approach to Combine Mental Effort and Performance Measures. Human Factors, 35: 734–743.

    Google Scholar 

  33. F. Paas, J. Tuovinen, H. Tabbers and P. van Gerven (2003) Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1): 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. W. Huang, P. Eades and S.-H. Hong (2013) Large crossing angles make graphs easier to read. Submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  35. W. Huang, C.C. Lin and M.L. Huang (2011) Aesthetic of angular resolution for node-link diagrams: Validation and algorithm. VL/HCC 2011: 213–216.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the contribution made by Peter Eades, Seokhee Hong, Mao Lin Huang and Chun-Cheng Lin for the research mentioned in the chapter. The author also thanks the study participants for their time and effort.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIRO ICT Centre, Corner Vimiera and Pembroke Roads, Marsfield, NSW, 2122, Australia

    Weidong Huang

Authors
  1. Weidong Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Weidong Huang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CSIRO ICT Centre, Marsfield, New South Wales, Australia

    Weidong Huang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Huang, W. (2014). Evaluating Overall Quality of Graph Visualizations Indirectly and Directly. In: Huang, W. (eds) Handbook of Human Centric Visualization. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7485-2_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7485-2_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7484-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7485-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation