skip to main content
10.1145/3565472.3595646acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesumapConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Overcoming Customisation Challenges in Information Dashboards

Published: 19 June 2023 Publication History
First page of PDF

References

[1]
Silva Almeida, Ketsmur Teixeira, and Fonseca Guimarães. 2019. Involving end-users in the design of an audit and feedback intervention in the emergency department setting – a mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research (2019).
[2]
Chevalier Banovic, Nikola. 2012. Triggers and Barriers to Customizing Software. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2717–2726 (2012).
[3]
Ana Caraban, Evangelos Karapanos, Daniel Gonçalves, and Pedro Campos. 2019. 23 ways to nudge: A review of technology-mediated nudging in human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–15.
[4]
Alan Davies. 2019. Carrying out systematic literature reviews: an introduction. British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing) (2019).
[5]
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.
[6]
Leah Findlater and Joanna Mcgrenere. 2010. Beyond Performance: Feature Awareness in Personalized Interfaces. International Journal ofHuman-Computer Studies 68, 3 (2010), 121–137. (2010).
[7]
Mirta Galesic and Rocio Garcia-Retamero. 2011. Graph literacy: A cross-cultural comparison. Medical decision making 31, 3 (2011), 444–457.
[8]
Ganchev and Donyo. 2017. pplication of Tableau Public Free Data Visualization Software in the Pesticide Science and Ecotoxicology Education. MAYFEB Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 4, 2017, pp. 36-47. (2017).
[9]
McGrenere Haraty and Bunt. 1990. Patterns of sharing customizable software.In Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW ’90), 209–221. (1990). https://doi.orghttp://doi.acm.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.11 45/99332.99356
[10]
Sébastien Lallé and Cristina Conati. 2019. The Role of User Differences in Customization: A Case Study in Personalization for Infovis-Based Content.Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (2019).
[11]
Ana Margarida Santos Lavrador and Raul MS Laureano. 2019. Dashboard to monitor performance of an hotel in the financial perspective. In 2019 14th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). IEEE, 206–211.
[12]
SHADAN MALIK. 2005. Enterprise dashboards: design and best practices for IT.
[13]
Joanna Mcgrenere, Ronald Baecker, and Kellogg Booth. 2002. An evaluation of a multiple interface design solution for bloated software. In Proc. CHI ’02. (2002), 164-170. (2002).
[14]
Lynne D Roberts, Joel A Howell, and Kristen Seaman. 2017. Give me a customizable dashboard: Personalized learning analytics dashboards in higher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 22, 3 (2017), 317–333.
[15]
Aleksandra Sarcevic, Ivan Marsic, and Randall S Burd. 2018. Dashboard design for improved team situation awareness in time-critical medical work: challenges and lessons learned. In Designing Healthcare That Works. Elsevier, 113–131.
[16]
Bartram Sarikaya, Correll, Tory, and Fisher. 2019. What Do We Talk about When We Talk about Dashboards?IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphic (2019).
[17]
Sephton and Alison. 2013. Decision-Making under Information Overload: Visual Representation, ‘Fast and Frugal’ Heuristics As Strategies For Dealing With Information Overload. Stellenbosch University (2013).
[18]
Marathe Sundar. 2010. Personalization versus Customization: The Importance of Agency, Privacy, and Power Usage. Human Communication Research ISSN 0360-3989 ORIGINAL (2010).
[19]
Richard H Thaler and Cass R Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: improving decisions about health. Wealth, and Happiness 6 (2008), 14–38.
[20]
Andrea Vázquez, Francisco García-Peñalvo, and Roberto Therón. 2019. Tailored information dashboards: A systematic mapping of the literature. Interacción ’19: Proceedings of the XX International Conference on Human Computer InteractionJune 2019 Article No.: 26Pages 1–8https://doi.org/10.1145/3335595.3335628 (2019).
[21]
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.
[22]
Francesco William, itale. 2020. Data Dashboard: Exploring Centralization and Customization in Personal Data Curation. DIS ’20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems ConferenceJuly 2020 Pages 311–326https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395457 (2020).

Cited By

View all
  • (undefined)Behavioural Indicators of Usability in Visual Analytics DashboardsACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems10.1145/3715710

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
UMAP '23: Proceedings of the 31st ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization
June 2023
333 pages
ISBN:9781450399326
DOI:10.1145/3565472
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 19 June 2023

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Customisable dashboards
  2. customisation challenges
  3. customisation features
  4. graph literacy
  5. information overload
  6. user diversity

Qualifiers

  • Extended-abstract
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

UMAP '23
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 162 of 633 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

UMAP '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)85
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
Reflects downloads up to 18 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (undefined)Behavioural Indicators of Usability in Visual Analytics DashboardsACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems10.1145/3715710

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media