DIMS | Communication and Visualisation
150519| GRS60312
Ron van Lammeren
Learning outcomes
Demonstrate the use of proper visualization techniques for effective communication of the information in the monitoring system
Develop and present a demonstrator for the DIMS focussing on communication and visualization
Course guide GRS60312 – 2014/2015
Maps for Monitoring
3/45
Maps for monitoring
4/45
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/business/ibm-takes-smarter-cities-concept-to-rio-de-janeiro.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
What type of design?
Communication
sender
Just bought a dog
A big one ?
No, not so big ...
Long hair?
No, short hair !
What colour?
White black spotted...
What a nice dog !
Isn’t it ?
receiver sender
receiver
Geo-visualisation communication
Sender: geo-referenced message
Receiver:(un) intended interpretation
interface
geo-visualisation
interface
Geo-visualisation 2-way communication
Receiver: (un) intended information (data)
Sender: intended message
interface
geo-visualisation
interface
Interaction Design
Setup
A Previous knowledge
B Usability
C User centered design
D Usability evaluation
E Trends
8/45
?
?
design evaluate
Interaction design: designing interactive products to support the way people
communicate and interact in their everyday and working lives
DIMS: designing interactive products to support the way people communicate
and interact with integrated monitoring procedures
A. Previous visualisation knowledge
KA |Cartography and Visualization
o History and trends
o Data considerations
oPrinciples of Map Design
o Graphic presentation techniques
o Map production
o Map use and Evaluation
BoK, Geo-Information (2006, DiBiase)
9/45
A. Principles of design
10/45
J. Bertin | cartographic theory
E. Tufte | data visualisation concepts
C. Ware | visual interpretation and cognition
C. Blok | cartographic concepts of temporal geodata
(S. Few | simple graphics of quantitative data)
linked to cognitive aspects of map reading skills
What knowledge may help ?
11/32
Landscape visualisation
Scientific visualisation
Cartographic visualisation
Geo data
‘Sensors’
Cognitive Affective Evaluative
Cartographic animation
Landscape animation
Scientific vis animation
Feedback Adjustments
A. Loosely bounded
S
M
L
S
M
L
C
C A
reference
thematic
11/45
A. Interactive visualisations
12/45
What interaction?
B.Usability of Geo-Visualisations
Usability Making products and systems easier to use,
and
matching them more closely to user needs and requirements
International standard, ISO 9241-11:
The extent to which a product can be used by specified users
to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and
satisfaction in a specified context of use.
13/45
www.usabilitynet.org
http://icaci.org/research-agenda/usability-of-maps-and-gi/
B.Usability goals
Effective to use (effectiveness)
Efficient to use (efficiency)
Safe to use (safety, error tolerant)
Have good utility (in line with required tasks)
Easy to learn (learnability)
Easy to remember how to use (memorability)
Rogers, Sharp, Preece 2011
14/45
B.User experience goals
Desirable aspects
● Satisfying, enjoyable, challenging, helpful, provoactive, ..
Undesirable aspects
● Frustrating, Boring, Patronizing, Cutesy, ..
The users - who is using the product?
highly trained and experienced users, or novices?
Their goals - what are the users trying to do with the product
does it support what they want to do with it?
The usage situation (or 'context of use')
where and how is the product being used?
15/45 Rogers, Sharp, Preece 2011
What to support the user’s interest?
C. Process of interaction design
User centered
Personas & requirements
Design principles
Demonstrator / Prototype
Evaluate
16/45
C. User centered approach
17/45
Applying a user-centered development cycle to interactive visualisation design
?
?
Wassink et al 2008
“ the user never makes an error “
C. Engineering/Design stages
1. Early envisioning phase
Analysis of current situation (users, environments, tasks)
- personas and requirements
2. Global specification phase of early prototypes
Design (by use scenarios), Proposal of solutions, present to users and
other stakeholders
3. Detailed specification phase of complete prototypes
Based on evaluation of 2.; visual representation and interaction styles
Rogers, Preece, Sharp, 2011
18/45
http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/13407stds.htm
C1. Early envisioning : Personas
19/45
personal characteristics, activities, interests thay may lead to use scenarios
Rich descriptions of typical user of the product.
Personas represent a synthesis of a number of real people and
are characterized by a unique set of goals relating to the product intended.
C1.Personas profiles
Psychological characteristics:
cognitive style, motivation
Knowledge and experience:
ranking novices to experts
Physical discomfort:
colour blind, pattern recognition
Task related:
role, frequency of use
C1.Techniques to define Personas
Questionnaires (many users, difficult to design)
Interviews (exploring, time consuming)
Existing documentation (trustworthy?)
Observation (creates understanding, time consuming)
Participation
Focus groups
Develop Use Scenarios
21/45
How to create Personas?
Haklay & Zafiri 2008
C2. Requirements
Statement about an intended product that specifies what it should do or how it should perform (Rogers et al, 2011; p 355)
Requirements describe the formal specifications required to implement the system
Lessons !!!
o produce a stable set of requirements (eg Volere skeleton template chapters 9/17)
o getting requirements right is crucial
o the stage where failure occurs most commonly
o !! mistakes in a final product are expensive !!
o try to understand underlying needs
o do not decide for the user, but check with the users
22/45
http://www.volere.co.uk/template.htm
C2. HTA and Story Board
23/45 Roest, Pieters, Bosch, 2015
C3. Interaction design principles
24/45
• Visibility highly visibly attracts attention
• Feedback important to know how to continue
• Constraints eg deactivating options
• Consistency locations on a screen
• Affordance a mouse button affords to click, a door handle to push
Rogers, Preece, Sharp, 2011
http://asktog.com/atc/principles-of-interaction-design/
How about ArcGIS ?
Verweij et al, 2010 25/45
Main design rule?
Usability evaluation
26/45
Any consistency?
Usability evaluation
27/45
What affordance?
C3. Methods & Tools
28/45
Some of the same methods are used in design and evaluation differently Different methods are often combined in one study
http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/methods.htm
D.Usability evaluation
?
?
Just bought a dog
A big one ?
No, not so big ...
Long hair?
No, short hair !
What colour?
White black spotted...
What a nice dog !
Isn’t it ?
29/45
D.Usability evaluation – how?
Approaches
Controlled settings involving users like Living labs
Natural settings involving users like Field studies
Controlled settings without users like Expert reviews
Methods and techniques
Quantitative or qualitative
Formative or summative
Users or experts (latter by eg. heuristic evaluation)
http://www.useit.com/jakob/
30/45
D.Evaluation approaches
31/45
Living Labs Field studies Expert reviews
Users do specific tasks do natural tasks not involved
Location controlled daily / natural
environment
laboratory
When prototype early use stage prototype
Data quantitative qualitative “qualitative”
Feed back measures &
errors
descriptions problem finding
Type applied naturalistic expert based
D.Evaluation methods
Method Living labs Field studies Expert reviews
Observing x x
Asking users x x
Asking experts x x
Testing x
Modeling x
32/45
http://www.groenmonitor.nl/groenindex
D. Pros and Cons
33/45
D.Usability evaluation methods in detail
34/45
Usually lab experiments
Performance metrics
Issues based metrics
Self-report measures
Behavioural and physiological metrics
Tullis, Albert 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqD2pXqT0Z0
E. Trends | medium is the message
35/45
http://bit.ly/cSNvc1 / Rogers et al, 2011 (p 482 -487) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ
What went wrong?
E. Trends
o History and trends
o Data considerations
o Principles of Map Design
o Graphic presentation techniques
o Map production
o Map use and Evaluation
BoK, Geo-Information (2006, DiBiase)
36/45
E. Next visualisation knowledge
KA |Cartography and Visualization
o History and trends
o Data considerations | global coverage (spatio-temporal resolution!),
3D, big data, data ensembles
o Principles of Map Design | seamless map+ lod, temporal, 3D, story
telling / infographics, animation
o Graphic presentation techniques | static to dynamic, web-map and -
scenes, virtual globes, virtual to augmented reality continuum
o Map production | paper to any device (any screen size to oculus rift),
interactive maps
o Map use and Evaluation | role of new technologies
37/45
E. Trendy Topics
Increasing demand for 3D, “realistic” visualizations, and animation
Driven by familiarity with new technology (games)
3D, realistic visualizations are aesthetically pleasing
benefits of realism
● minimize interpretive effort
● feels complete, accurate, easy (available instantly and constantly)
38/45
http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjMVsTFVX10
E.3D visualizations
If the data themselves are 3D, the third dimension communicates important information
3D useful for:
visualizing volumes, and sightlines (instead of making mental models by combining 2D visualizations)
communicating the concept place
navigating through areas
Realistic texturing, illumination:
may facilitate feeling of ‘presence’ in a location
may introduce affective appraisal of an area
http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/revelations/en-GB/home/
39/45
E.Preference for realism
• extraneous realism slowed response time and lead to more eye fixations on both task-relevant and task-irrelevant regions of the displays • some participants persisted in favoring these realistic displays over non-realistic maps.
Hegarty et al, 2011
40/45
E.Preference for 3D visualizations:
Naïve Realism and Naïve Cartography!
Users prefer realistic, complex and high-fidelity displays, even when their performance is lower (extra information is not task relevant, and distracting)
Users have more confidence in data presented in realistic displays
Appreciation of the 3D visualization may transfer to the content of the data
User preferences, even those of domain experts, are not a good indication of effectiveness; testing required.
Smallman, St John 2005
41/45
Risks of 3D preference?
E. Attractive things work better
when we feel attracted, we overlook design faults
42/45
E. Attractive things work better
when we feel attracted, we overlook design faults
Donald Norman (2002)
“.. any pleasure, derivable from the appearance or functioning of the tool increases positive affect, broadening the creativity and increasing the tolerance for minor difficulties and blockages.
The changes in processing style released by positive affect aid in creative problem solving that is apt to overcome both difficulties encountered in the activity and those created by the interface design.
“Tools that are meant to support serious, concentrated effort (…), are best served by designs that emphasize function and minimize irrelevancies. “
Here the normal tensions of the situation are beneficial. The design should not get in the way; it must be carefully tailored for the task.
43/45
Some conclusions……
Communication by geo-visualisation is powerful
and common, but:
Use cartographic / geo-visualisation principles
Develop with users (User centered design)
By Defining Personas and Requirements
To develop demonstrators / prototypes
Include interaction design rules
Review demonstrators via usability evaluation
Check if “Affect” be an unwanted side-effect
However: cartography & visualisation trends lead
to options that have not fully dis- and uncovered
44/45
?
?
150519| rvl | www.geo-informatie.nl
Based and inspired by Joske Houtkamp lectures, Rogers et al, projects of Peter Verweij; MGI/GIMA thesis studies (2000 – 2015) of
Bos, Hoogerwerf, Ottens, Davelaar, de Roo, Momot, Velema, Witte, Gaertner, Zhou, Luisman, Milosz, Getachew, Valster, van Rooij,
Gold, Link, Petrenko, van der Mijden, Smit
45/45
Text and pictures from DiWi, Foulkes, GESO, PSPE, QUICKS, VOLANTE projects
DIMS |
Communication
and
Visualisation
http://www.tableau.com/about/blog/2012/11/top-5-visualizations-all-time-19810
References Rogers, Sharp & Preece 2011 Interaction design Wiley
Wassink et al 2008 Applying a user-centered approach to interactive visualisation design in Trends in Interactive Visualization Advanced Information and
Knowledge Processing, 2009, 3, 175-199
Verweij et al 2010 An IT perspective on integrated environmental modelling: The SIAT case ; Ecological modeling 221: 2167-2176
Haklay, Zafiri 2008 Usability Engineering for GIS: Learning from a Screenshot; The Cartographic Journal Vol. 45 No. 2 pp. 87–97
Tullis, Albert 2008 Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Senaratne et al 2012 Usability of Spatio-Temporal Uncertainty Visualisation Methods in Gensel et al. (eds.), Bridging the Geographic
Information Sciences, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography
Hegarty et al 2012 Choosing and Using Geospatial Displays: Effects of Design on Performance and Metacognition; Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied vol 18, 1: 1-17
Lammeren et al 2010 Affective appraisal of 3D land use visualization; Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 34 (2010) 465–475
Smallman, St. John 2005 Naive Realism: Misplaced Faith in Realistic Displays; Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications 2005
13: 6
Norman, 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York, NY.
Tractinsky et al 2000 What is beautiful is usable; Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 127-145
Lee, Koubekl 2010 Understanding user preferences based on usability and aesthetics before and after actual use Interacting with Computers 22 (2010)
530–543
46/45
Full screen image with title