Evaluating Alignment Approaches in Superimposed Time-Series and Temporal Event-Sequence Visualizations

Yixuan Zhang, Sara Di Bartolomeo, Fangfang Sheng, H. Jimison, Cody Dunne
{"title":"Evaluating Alignment Approaches in Superimposed Time-Series and Temporal Event-Sequence Visualizations","authors":"Yixuan Zhang, Sara Di Bartolomeo, Fangfang Sheng, H. Jimison, Cody Dunne","doi":"10.1109/VISUAL.2019.8933584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Composite temporal event sequence visualizations have included sentinel event alignment techniques to cope with data volume and variety. Prior work has demonstrated the utility of using single-event alignment for understanding the precursor, co-occurring, and aftereffect events surrounding a sentinel event. However, the usefulness of single-event alignment has not been sufficiently evaluated in composite visualizations. Furthermore, recently proposed dual-event alignment techniques have not been empirically evaluated. In this work, we designed tasks around temporal event sequence and timing analysis and conducted a controlled experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk to examine four sentinel event alignment approaches: no sentinel event alignment (NoAlign), single-event alignment (SingleAlign), dual-event alignment with left justification (DualLeft), and dual-event alignment with stretch justification (DualStretch). Differences between approaches were most pronounced with more rows of data. For understanding intermediate events between two sentinel events, dual-event alignment was the clear winner for correctness—71% vs. 18% for NoAlign and SingleAlign. For understanding the duration between two sentinel events, NoAlign was the clear winner: correctness—88% vs. 36% for DualStretch— completion time—55 seconds vs. 101 seconds for DualLeft—and error—1.5% vs. 8.4% for DualStretch. For understanding precursor and aftereffect events, there was no significant difference among approaches. A free copy of this paper, the evaluation stimuli and data, and source code are available at osf.io/78fs5","PeriodicalId":192801,"journal":{"name":"2019 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS)","volume":"13 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/VISUAL.2019.8933584","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Composite temporal event sequence visualizations have included sentinel event alignment techniques to cope with data volume and variety. Prior work has demonstrated the utility of using single-event alignment for understanding the precursor, co-occurring, and aftereffect events surrounding a sentinel event. However, the usefulness of single-event alignment has not been sufficiently evaluated in composite visualizations. Furthermore, recently proposed dual-event alignment techniques have not been empirically evaluated. In this work, we designed tasks around temporal event sequence and timing analysis and conducted a controlled experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk to examine four sentinel event alignment approaches: no sentinel event alignment (NoAlign), single-event alignment (SingleAlign), dual-event alignment with left justification (DualLeft), and dual-event alignment with stretch justification (DualStretch). Differences between approaches were most pronounced with more rows of data. For understanding intermediate events between two sentinel events, dual-event alignment was the clear winner for correctness—71% vs. 18% for NoAlign and SingleAlign. For understanding the duration between two sentinel events, NoAlign was the clear winner: correctness—88% vs. 36% for DualStretch— completion time—55 seconds vs. 101 seconds for DualLeft—and error—1.5% vs. 8.4% for DualStretch. For understanding precursor and aftereffect events, there was no significant difference among approaches. A free copy of this paper, the evaluation stimuli and data, and source code are available at osf.io/78fs5
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评价叠加时间序列和时间事件序列可视化中的对齐方法
复合时间事件序列可视化包括哨兵事件对齐技术,以应对数据量和多样性。先前的工作已经证明了使用单事件对齐来理解前驱事件、共同发生事件和围绕前哨事件的后效事件的效用。然而,在复合可视化中,单事件对齐的有用性还没有得到充分的评估。此外,最近提出的双事件对齐技术还没有经过实证评估。在这项工作中,我们围绕时间事件序列和时间分析设计了任务,并在Amazon Mechanical Turk上进行了对照实验,以检查四种哨兵事件对齐方法:无哨兵事件对齐(NoAlign)、单事件对齐(SingleAlign)、左对齐双事件对齐(DualLeft)和拉伸对齐双事件对齐(DualStretch)。数据行越多,方法之间的差异就越明显。对于理解两个前哨事件之间的中间事件,双事件对齐在正确率上明显胜出——71%,而NoAlign和SingleAlign的正确率为18%。在了解两个哨兵事件之间的持续时间方面,NoAlign是明显的赢家:正误率为88%,而DualStretch为36%;完成时间为55秒,而DualStretch为101秒;错误率为1.5%,而DualStretch为8.4%。对于前驱和后效事件的理解,不同方法间无显著差异。本文的免费副本、评估刺激和数据以及源代码可在osf.io/78fs5获得
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
EasyPZ.js: Interaction Binding for Pan and Zoom Visualizations Uncovering Data Landscapes through Data Reconnaissance and Task Wrangling Disentangled Representation of Data Distributions in Scatterplots RuleVis: Constructing Patterns and Rules for Rule-Based Models Interactive Bicluster Aggregation in Bipartite Graphs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1