Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DIMS | Communication and Visualisation
160518| GRS60312
Ron van Lammeren
Maps for Monitoring
2/43
Maps for monitoring
3/43
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?
http://www.marinetraffic.com/
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 – 2015/2016
Anologue vs Web Maps
Roth, 2013
5/46
GeoVisualization
Geovisualization can be described as a loosely bounded domain that addresses the visual exploration, analysis, synthesis and presentation of geospatial data by integrating approaches from cartography with those from other information representation and analysis disciplines, including scientific visualisation, image analysis, information visualisation, exploratory data analysis and GI Science“ Kraak 2005, after Dykes, et al., 2005
6/46 Roth, 2013
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-visualization 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
Visualization of geo-data
static-dynamic?
2D-3D?
Interface design
What interaction?
Interaction Design
Setup
A Previous knowledge
B Usability
C User centered design
D Usability evaluation
E Trends
10/43
?
?
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)
11/43
A. Principles of design
12/43
What knowledge may help ?
Data _ ΔT Data visualization
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
13/43
A. Interactive visualisations
14/43
What interaction?
see Scheerooren, 2016
A. Proper use of visualization techniques?
Bertin – cartographic semiotics
Ware - gestalt theory [ http://bit.ly/1svCxty ] and
perception mechanisms
Few - graphs and diagrams
Brewer - colour use [ http://colorbrewer2.org/ ]
Tufte - visualization of quantitative data
Sheppard - 3D quality issues
MacEachren – visual analytics – geodata
Rogers et al. - Human Computer Interaction | Usability
Andrienko - visual analytics – location based / tracks
Cairo - infographics
Dodge, Kitchin, Perkins 2011 15/43
B. Usability of Geo-Visualizations
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.
16/43
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
17/43
B. User experience goals
Desirable aspects
● Satisfying, enjoyable, challenging, helpful, pro-active, ..
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?
18/43 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
19/43
“ the user never makes an error “
Wassink et al 2008
Applying a user-centered development cycle to interactive visualization design
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, Sharp, Preece 2011
20/43
http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/13407stds.htm
C1. Early envisioning : Personas
21/43
personal characteristics, activities, interests that 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.
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
22/43
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
23/43
http://www.volere.co.uk/template.htm
C2. Demonstrator Specification
Hierarchal Task Analysis and Story Board
24/43 Roest, Pieters, Bosch, 2015
C3. Interaction design principles
25/43
• 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 ?
Scheerooren, 2016 26/43
Main design rule?
C3. Usability | Methods & Tools
27/43
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 ?
28/43
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/
29/43
D.Evaluation approaches
30/43
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”
Feedback 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
31/43
http://www.groenmonitor.nl/groenindex
D. Pros and Cons
32/43
living lab
field study
expert review
D. Usability evaluation methods in detail
33/43
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
34/43
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)
http://www.gi-n2k.eu/ (2014-2016)
35/43
E. Visualisation | next generation
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+ zoom levels, temporal,
3D+LOD, animation, story telling / infographics
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
36/43
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)
37/43
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/
38/43
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
39/43
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
40/43
Risks of 3D preference?
E. Attractive things work better
when we feel attracted, we overlook design faults
41/43
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.
42/43
Some conclusions……
Proper visualization techniques in monitoring studies
are based on
using cartographic / geo-visualisation concepts
Applying user centered design
by defining Personas and Requirements
and developing demonstrators / prototypes
including interaction design rules
reviewing demonstrators via usability studies
check an unwanted side-effects ( eg. ‘Affect’)
Geo-visualisation trends lead to next generation
approaches that need usability study to understand
impact on communication
43/43
?
?
160518| 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, Scheerooren 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
D.Self-report measures
Ask users about their perception of the application and
their interaction with it
Semantic differential scales
Beautiful o o o o o o o Ugly
Likert scales
“The information was easy to find”
strong disagree / disagree / neither agree nor disagree / agree / strong agree
Open-ended questions
(Which 5 elements did you like the least/most? Reasons for assessments)
Standard questionnaires:
SUS (System usability scale),
QUIS (user interface satisfaction),
USE (Usefulness, Satisfaction and ease of Use)
C1 Example screenshot study for GIS
Goals:
How do GIS users organise and customise the interface?
Study common users in daily usage
Users were asked: - to send a screenshot of their entire screen when working on routine tasks
- to fill in a Questionnaire to provide additional information
Analysis:
proportion of interface assigned to map-other parts of interface (e.g. toolbars)
User experience
Screen resolution
Result: simple technique to understand how GIS is used in situ
Haklay & Zafiri 2008
https://flowingdata.com/
http://indiemapper.com/app/
http://flowmap.geo.uu.nl/download.php (?)
