Journal article icon

Journal article

A bounded measure for estimating the benefit of visualization (part II): Case studies and empirical evaluation

Abstract:
Many visual representations, such as volume-rendered images and metro maps, feature a noticeable amount of information loss due to a variety of many-to-one mappings. At a glance, there seem to be numerous opportunities for viewers to misinterpret the data being visualized, hence, undermining the benefits of these visual representations. In practice, there is little doubt that these visual representations are useful. The recently-proposed information-theoretic measure for analyzing the cost–benefit ratio of visualization processes can explain such usefulness experienced in practice and postulate that the viewers’ knowledge can reduce the potential distortion (e.g., misinterpretation) due to information loss. This suggests that viewers’ knowledge can be estimated by comparing the potential distortion without any knowledge and the actual distortion with some knowledge. However, the existing cost–benefit measure consists of an unbounded divergence term, making the numerical measurements difficult to interpret. This is the second part of a two-part paper, which aims to improve the existing cost–benefit measure. Part I of the paper provided a theoretical discourse about the problem of unboundedness, reported a conceptual analysis of nine candidate divergence measures for resolving the problem, and eliminated three from further consideration. In this Part II, we describe two groups of case studies for evaluating the remaining six candidate measures empirically. In particular, we obtained instance data for (i) supporting the evaluation of the remaining candidate measures and (ii) demonstrating their applicability in practical scenarios for estimating the cost–benefit of visualization processes as well as the impact of human knowledge in the processes. The real world data about visualization provides practical evidence for evaluating the usability and intuitiveness of the candidate measures. The combination of the conceptual analysis in Part I and the empirical evaluation in this part allows us to select the most appropriate bounded divergence measure for improving the existing cost–benefit measure.
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions


Access Document


Files:
Publisher copy:
10.3390/e24020282

Authors


More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
MPLS
Department:
Engineering Science
Oxford college:
Pembroke College
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0001-5320-5729
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
MPLS
Department:
Engineering Science
Oxford college:
Pembroke College
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0002-6257-876X
More by this author
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0003-2164-6858


Publisher:
MDPI
Journal:
Entropy More from this journal
Volume:
24
Issue:
2
Article number:
282
Publication date:
2022-02-16
Acceptance date:
2022-02-11
DOI:
EISSN:
1099-4300
Pmid:
35205574

Terms of use



Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP