Mohammed Alhamadi
Sarah Clinch
ABSTRACT
Interacting with and making sense of information dashboards is often problematic. Typically, users develop strategies to go around and overcome these problems. These strategies can be conceived as behavioural markers of cognitive processes that indicate problematic interactions. Consequently, if we were able to computationally model these strategies, we could detect if users are encountering problems in real time (and act accordingly). We conducted an experiment (N=63) to identify the interaction strategies users employ on problematic dashboards. We found that while existing challenges impact significantly on user performance, interventions to mitigate such challenges were especially beneficial for those with lower graph literacy. We identified the strategies employed by users when encountering problems: extensive page exploration as a reaction to information overload and use of customisation functionalities when understanding data is problematic. We also found that some strategies are indicators of performance in terms of task completion time and effectiveness: extensive exploration strategies were indicators of lower performance, while the exhibition of customisation strategies is associated with higher effectiveness.
Supplemental Material
- Ünal Aksu, Adela del Río-Ortega, Manuel Resinas, and Hajo A Reijers. 2019. An Approach for the Automated Generation of Engaging Dashboards. In OTM Confederated International Conferences” On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems”. Springer, 363–384.Google Scholar
- Sakinah SJ Alhadad. 2016. Attentional and cognitive processing of analytics visualisations: Can design features affect interpretations and decisions about learning and teaching. Show Me The Learning. Proceedings ASCILITE(2016), 20–32.Google Scholar
- Aitor Apaolaza and Markel Vigo. 2017. WevQuery: testing hypotheses about web interaction patterns. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, EICS(2017), 1–17.Google ScholarDigital Library
- CDC. 2020. COVIDView. Retrieved April 10, 2020 from cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/Google Scholar
- Sven Charleer, Kathrin Gerling, Francisco Gutiérrez, Hans Cauwenbergh, Bram Luycx, and Katrien Verbert. 2018. Real-time dashboards to support esports spectating. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 59–71.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mon Chu Chen, John R. Anderson, and Myeong Ho Sohn. 2001. What Can a Mouse Cursor Tell Us More?: Correlation of Eye/Mouse Movements on Web Browsing. In CHI ’01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seattle, Washington) (CHI EA ’01). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 281–282. https://doi.org/10.1145/634067.634234Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joan Morris DiMicco and Nancy Mann. 2016. User research to inform product design: turning failure into small successes. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 872–879.Google ScholarDigital Library
- ECDC. 2021. ECDC Dashboards. Retrieved April 15, 2021 from qap.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/covid-19/covid-19.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Claudia Ehmke and Stephanie Wilson. 2007. Identifying Web Usability Problems from Eye-tracking Data. In Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers (University of Lancaster, United Kingdom) (BCS-HCI ’07). British Computer Society, Swinton, UK, 119–128.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stephen Few. 2006. Information dashboard design: The effective visual communication of data. O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar
- Philippe Fournier-Viger, Antonio Gomariz, Ted Gueniche, Azadeh Soltani, Cheng-Wei Wu, Vincent S Tseng, 2014. Spmf: a java open-source pattern mining library.J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15, 1 (2014), 3389–3393.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Philippe Fournier-Viger, Cheng-Wei Wu, Antonio Gomariz, and Vincent S Tseng. 2014. VMSP: Efficient vertical mining of maximal sequential patterns. In Canadian conference on artificial intelligence. Springer, 83–94.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maria-Elena Froese and Melanie Tory. 2016. Lessons learned from designing visualization dashboards. IEEE computer graphics and applications 36, 2 (2016), 83–89.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Katherine Everitt, Desney S. Tan, Mary Czerwinski, and Daniel S. Weld. 2008. Predictability and Accuracy in Adaptive User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Florence, Italy) (CHI ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1271–1274. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357252Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mirta Galesic and Rocio Garcia-Retamero. 2011. Graph literacy: a cross-cultural comparison. Medical Decision Making 31, 3 (2011), 444–457.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sukumar Ganapati. 2011. Key features for designing a dashboard. Government Finance Review(2011), 0883–7856.Google Scholar
- Lars Grammel, Melanie Tory, and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2010. How information visualization novices construct visualizations. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 16, 6(2010), 943–952.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Qi Guo and Eugene Agichtein. 2010. Towards predicting web searcher gaze position from mouse movements. In CHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3601–3606.Google Scholar
- Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183.Google Scholar
- Mary Hegarty. 2018. Advances in cognitive science and information visualization. Score reporting research and applications(2018), 19–34.Google Scholar
- Andrea Janes, Alberto Sillitti, and Giancarlo Succi. 2013. Effective dashboard design. Cutter IT Journal 26, 1 (2013), 17–24.Google Scholar
- Richelle J Koopman, Karl M Kochendorfer, Joi L Moore, David R Mehr, Douglas S Wakefield, Borchuluun Yadamsuren, Jared S Coberly, Robin L Kruse, Bonnie J Wakefield, and Jeffery L Belden. 2011. A diabetes dashboard and physician efficiency and accuracy in accessing data needed for high-quality diabetes care. The Annals of Family Medicine 9, 5 (2011), 398–405.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ricardo Matheus, Marijn Janssen, and Devender Maheshwari. 2018. Data science empowering the public: Data-driven dashboards for transparent and accountable decision-making in smart cities. Government Information Quarterly(2018), 101284.Google Scholar
- Saudi MOH. 2020. Saudi COVID-19 Dashboard. Retrieved May 21, 2020 from covid19.moh.gov.sa/Google Scholar
- NHS. 2020. UK COVID-19. Retrieved April 10, 2020 from gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-track-coronavirus-casesGoogle Scholar
- Yasmina Okan, Mirta Galesic, and Rocio Garcia-Retamero. 2016. How people with low and high graph literacy process health graphs: Evidence from eye-tracking. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 29, 2-3 (2016), 271–294.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yasmina Okan, Eva Janssen, Mirta Galesic, and Erika A Waters. 2019. Using the short graph literacy scale to predict precursors of health behavior change. Medical Decision Making 39, 3 (2019), 183–195.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yeonjeong Park and Il-Hyun Jo. 2019. Factors that affect the success of learning analytics dashboards. Educational Technology Research and Development 67, 6(2019), 1547–1571.Google ScholarCross Ref
- The R Project. 2022. RShiny. Retrieved February 15, 2022 from cran.r-project.org/web/packages/shinydashboardGoogle Scholar
- Alper Sarikaya, Michael Correll, Lyn Bartram, Melanie Tory, and Danyel Fisher. 2018. What do we talk about when we talk about dashboards?IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 25, 1(2018), 682–692.Google Scholar
- A. Sarikaya, M. Correll, L. Bartram, M. Tory, and D. Fisher. 2019. What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Dashboards?IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 1 (Jan 2019), 682–692. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864903Google ScholarDigital Library
- Harri Siirtola. 2019. The cost of pie charts. In 2019 23rd International Conference Information Visualisation (IV). IEEE, 151–156.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Arjun Srinivasan, Matthew Brehmer, Bongshin Lee, and Steven M Drucker. 2018. What’s the Difference? Evaluating Variations of Multi-Series Bar Charts for Visual Comparison Tasks. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dragos Strugar. 2019. Complex Systems: On Design and Architecture of Adaptable Dashboards. In International Conference on Objects, Components, Models and Patterns. Springer, 176–186.Google Scholar
- Henri Tokola, Christoph Gröger, Eeva Järvenpää, and Esko Niemi. 2016. Designing manufacturing dashboards on the basis of a Key Performance Indicator survey. Procedia CIRP 57(2016), 619–624.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrea Vázquez-Ingelmo, Francisco José García-Peñalvo, and Roberto Therón. 2019. Tailored information dashboards: A systematic mapping of the literature. In Proceedings of the XX international conference on human computer interaction. 1–8.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Simon Wakeling, Paul Clough, James Wyper, and Amy Balmain. 2015. Graph literacy and business intelligence: Investigating user understanding of dashboard data visualizations. Business Intelligence Journal 20, 4 (2015), 8–19.Google Scholar
- WHO. 2020. WHO Health Emergency Dashboard. Retrieved April 10, 2020 from who.sprinklr.com/Google Scholar
- Ainhoa Yera, Javier Muguerza, Olatz Arbelaitz, Iñigo Perona, Richard Keers, Darren Ashcroft, Richard Williams, Niels Peek, Caroline Jay, and Markel Vigo. 2018. Inferring Visual Behaviour from User Interaction Data on a Medical Dashboard. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Digital Health. 55–59.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ogan M Yigitbasioglu and Oana Velcu. 2012. A review of dashboards in performance management: Implications for design and research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 13, 1(2012), 41–59.Google ScholarCross Ref
- He Yu, Simon Harper, and Markel Vigo. 2021. Modeling micro-interactions in self-regulated learning: A data-driven methodology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 151 (2021), 102625.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Juan Diego Zapata-Rivera and Irvin R Katz. 2014. Keeping your audience in mind: Applying audience analysis to the design of interactive score reports. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 21, 4(2014), 442–463.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Modeling User Strategies on Interactive Information Dashboards
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Challenges, Strategies and Adaptations on Interactive Dashboards
UMAP '20: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and PersonalizationInteractive dashboards enable viewing and interacting with complex underlying data using visualisations such as charts, tables, maps, or even text typically on a single display. By bringing the most important information in a single place, dashboards ...
Supporting exploratory search tasks with interactive user modeling
ASIST '13: Proceedings of the 76th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Beyond the Cloud: Rethinking Information BoundariesThis paper presents the design and study of interactive user modeling to support exploratory search tasks. Contrary to traditional interactions, such as query based search, query suggestions, or relevance feedback, interactive user modeling allows a ...
Harnessing the Information Ecosystem with Wiki-based Visualization Dashboards
We describe the design and deployment of Dashiki, a public website where users may collaboratively build visualization dashboards through a combination of a wiki-like syntax and interactive editors. Our goals are to extend existing research on social ...
Comments