skip to main content
10.1145/3453892.3458045acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespetraConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Tactile Heatmaps: A Novel Visualisation Technique for Data Analysis with Tactile Charts

Published:29 June 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Analysing large data sets for various purposes is a growing requirement for many professions. Tactile charts are suitable to enable people with visual impairment and blindness performing data analysis tasks. However, only a few approaches focus on the development of tactile charts for data analysis purposes. Concepts are needed to represent a sufficient amount of data with tactile charts and address arising challenges, such as information overload. In this paper, we first discuss and analyse the scalability of data represented by tactile charts using tactile scatterplots. We further address the data size limitations and present methods to identify critical, tactile representation with limited readability respecting the analysis task. Moreover, we propose methods to increase the amount of data represented in tactile scatterplots. We further introduce tactile heatmaps as an innovative and new concept for haptic data representation that utilises different elevation levels. We evaluated our design concept as well as the feasibility of varying elevation levels with 11 blind and visually impaired people. We compared four design conditions for embossed tactile heatmaps as well as the suitability of 3D-printed heatmaps. The results show that tactile heatmaps are suitable for representing more data than previously known tactile representation methods. They support obtaining an overview of a high amount of data and can be applied for data analysis purposes.

References

  1. Frances K. Aldrich and Alan J. Parkin. 1987. Tangible Line Graphs: An Experimental Investigation of Three Formats Using Capsule Paper. Human Factors 29, 3 (1987), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088702900304 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088702900304PMID: 3623565.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. John L. Barth. 1984. Incised Grids: Enhancing the Readability of Tangible Graphs for the Blind. Human Factors 26, 1 (1984), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088402600106 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088402600106PMID: 6735408.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Jacques Bertin. 1974. Grafische Semiologie. Diagramme–Netze–Karten.(1974).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. E. Bertini, A. Tatu, and D. Keim. 2011. Quality Metrics in High-Dimensional Data Visualization: An Overview and Systematization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 17, 12(2011), 2203–2212. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2011.229Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Braille Authority of North America and Canadian Braille Authority. 2010. Guidelines and standards for tactile graphics. http://www.brailleauthority.org/tg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ed Huai-hsin Chi. 2000. A taxonomy of visualization techniques using the data state reference model. In IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization 2000. INFOVIS 2000. Proceedings. IEEE, 69–75.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Sidney S Culbert and William T Stellwagen. 1963. Tactual discrimination of textures. Perceptual and Motor Skills 16, 2 (1963), 545–552.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Snir Dinar, Jonathan Rowell, and Don McCallum. 2005. The uniqueness of symbol profile as a design variable in tactile cartography. In International Cartographic Conference 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Christin Engel, Nadja Konrad, and Gerhard Weber. 2020. TouchPen: Rich Interaction Technique for Audio-Tactile Charts by Means of Digital Pens. In International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs. Springer, 446–455.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Christin Engel and Gerhard Weber. 2017. Improve the accessibility of tactile charts. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 187–195.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Christin Engel and Gerhard Weber. 2018. A user study to evaluate tactile charts with blind and visually impaired people. In International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs. Springer, 177–184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Christin Engel and Gerhard Weber. 2019. User Study: A Detailed View on the Effectiveness and Design of Tactile Charts. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 63–82.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Danyel Fisher. 2016. Big data exploration requires collaboration between visualization and data infrastructures. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Human-In-the-Loop Data Analytics. 1–5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. John A Gardner and Vladimir Bulatov. 2006. Scientific Diagrams Made Easy with IVEO ™. (2006), 1243–1250.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Timo Götzelmann. 2016. LucentMaps: 3D Printed Audiovisual Tactile Maps for Blind and Visually Impaired People. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Reno, Nevada, USA) (ASSETS ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1145/2982142.2982163Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. R. Gupta, P. V. M. Rao, M. Balakrishnan, and S. Mannheimer. 2019. Evaluating the Use of Variable Height in Tactile Graphics. In 2019 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC). 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1109/WHC.2019.8816083Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Sandra Jehoel, Snir Dinar, Don McCallum, Jonathan Rowell, and Simon Ungar. 2005. A scientific approach to tactile map design: Minimum elevation of tactile map symbols. In Proceedings of XXII International Cartographic Conference A Coruρa, Spain.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Sandra Jehoel, Don McCallum, Jonathan Rowell, and Simon Ungar. 2006. An empirical approach on the design of tactile maps and diagrams: The cognitive tactualization approach. British Journal of Visual Impairment 24, 2 (2006), 67–75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Jimmy Johansson and Matthew Cooper. 2008. A screen space quality method for data abstraction. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 27. Wiley Online Library, 1039–1046.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. D. A. Keim and A. Herrmann. 1998. The Gridfit algorithm: an efficient and effective approach to visualizing large amounts of spatial data. In Proceedings Visualization ’98 (Cat. No.98CB36276). 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1109/VISUAL.1998.745301Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Susan J. Lederman and Jamie I. Campbell. 1982. Tangible Graphs for the Blind. Human Factors 24, 1 (1982), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088202400109 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088202400109PMID: 7068153.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Jing Li, Jean-Bernard Martens, and Jarke J van Wijk. 2010. A model of symbol size discrimination in scatterplots. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2553–2562.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. H. Liao, Y. Wu, L. Chen, and W. Chen. 2018. Cluster-Based Visual Abstraction for Multivariate Scatterplots. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 9(2018), 2531–2545. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.2754480Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Justin Matejka, Fraser Anderson, and George Fitzmaurice. 2015. Dynamic opacity optimization for scatter plots. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2707–2710.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilities Inc.2005. Guidelines on Conveying Visual Information. (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Denise Prescher, Jens Bornschein, and Gerhard Weber. 2017. Consistency of a Tactile Pattern Set. 10, 2 (2017), 1–29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. P. Rosen and G. J. Quadri. 2020. LineSmooth: An Analytical Framework for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Smoothing Techniques on Line Charts. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2020), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030421Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. William Schiff and Herbert Isikow. 1966. Stimulus redundancy in the tactile perception of histograms.International Journal for the Education of the Blind (1966).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Ben Shneiderman. 2003. The eyes have it: A task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In The craft of information visualization. Elsevier, 364–371.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. R Vasconcellos. 1991. Knowing the Amazon through tactual graphics. In Proceedings 15th International.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Tetsuya Watanabe, Toshimitsu Yamaguchi, and Masaki Nakagawa. 2012. Development of software for automatic creation of embossed graphs: Comparison of non-visual data presentation methods and development up-to-date. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 7382 LNCS, PART 1(2012), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31522-0_25Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Allison Woodruff, James Landay, and Michael Stonebraker. 1998. Constant density visualizations of non-uniform distributions of data. In Proceedings of the 11th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. 19–28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. J. S. Yi, Y. a. Kang, J. Stasko, and J. A. Jacko. 2007. Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Role of Interaction in Information Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 13, 6(2007), 1224–1231. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2007.70515Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    PETRA '21: Proceedings of the 14th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference
    June 2021
    593 pages
    ISBN:9781450387927
    DOI:10.1145/3453892

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 29 June 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)66
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format