BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Alvitta Ottley

Alvitta Ottley contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Human-Computer InteractionMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Grammar-Based Approach for Applying Visualization Taxonomies to Interaction Logs

Researchers collect large amounts of user interaction data with the goal of mapping user's workflows and behaviors to their higher-level motivations, intuitions, and goals. Although the visual analytics community has proposed numerous taxonomies to facilitate this mapping process, no formal methods exist for systematically applying these existing theories to user interaction logs. This paper seeks to bridge the gap between visualization task taxonomies and interaction log data by making the taxonomies more actionable for interaction log analysis. To achieve this, we leverage structural parallels between how people express themselves through interactions and language by reformulating existing theories as regular grammars. We represent interactions as terminals within a regular grammar, similar to the role of individual words in a language, and patterns of interactions or non-terminals as regular expressions over these terminals to capture common language patterns. To demonstrate our approach, we generate regular grammars for seven visualization taxonomies and develop code to apply them to three interaction log datasets. In analyzing our results, we find that existing taxonomies at the low-level (i.e., terminals) show mixed results in expressing multiple interaction log datasets, and taxonomies at the high-level (i.e., regular expressions) have limited expressiveness, due to primarily two challenges: inconsistencies in interaction log dataset granularity and structure, and under-expressiveness of certain terminals. Based on our findings, we suggest new research directions for the visualization community for augmenting existing taxonomies, developing new ones, and building better interaction log recording processes to facilitate the data-driven development of user behavior taxonomies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

A Unified Comparison of User Modeling Techniques for Predicting Data Interaction and Detecting Exploration Bias

The visual analytics community has proposed several user modeling algorithms to capture and analyze users' interaction behavior in order to assist users in data exploration and insight generation. For example, some can detect exploration biases while others can predict data points that the user will interact with before that interaction occurs. Researchers believe this collection of algorithms can help create more intelligent visual analytics tools. However, the community lacks a rigorous evaluation and comparison of these existing techniques. As a result, there is limited guidance on which method to use and when. Our paper seeks to fill in this missing gap by comparing and ranking eight user modeling algorithms based on their performance on a diverse set of four user study datasets. We analyze exploration bias detection, data interaction prediction, and algorithmic complexity, among other measures. Based on our findings, we highlight open challenges and new directions for analyzing user interactions and visualization provenance.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Guided Data Discovery in Interactive Visualizations via Active Search

Recent advances in visual analytics have enabled us to learn from user interactions and uncover analytic goals. These innovations set the foundation for actively guiding users during data exploration. Providing such guidance will become more critical as datasets grow in size and complexity, precluding exhaustive investigation. Meanwhile, the machine learning community also struggles with datasets growing in size and complexity, precluding exhaustive labeling. Active learning is a broad family of algorithms developed for actively guiding models during training. We will consider the intersection of these analogous research thrusts. First, we discuss the nuances of matching the choice of an active learning algorithm to the task at hand. This is critical for performance, a fact we demonstrate in a simulation study. We then present results of a user study for the particular task of data discovery guided by an active learning algorithm specifically designed for this task.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Inferential Tasks as an Evaluation Technique for Visualization

Designing suitable tasks for visualization evaluation remains challenging. Traditional evaluation techniques commonly rely on 'low-level' or 'open-ended' tasks to assess the efficacy of a proposed visualization, however, nontrivial trade-offs exist between the two. Low-level tasks allow for robust quantitative evaluations, but are not indicative of the complex usage of a visualization. Open-ended tasks, while excellent for insight-based evaluations, are typically unstructured and require time-consuming interviews. Bridging this gap, we propose inferential tasks: a complementary task category based on inferential learning in psychology. Inferential tasks produce quantitative evaluation data in which users are prompted to form and validate their own findings with a visualization. We demonstrate the use of inferential tasks through a validation experiment on two well-known visualization tools.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Does Interaction Improve Bayesian Reasoning with Visualization?

Interaction enables users to navigate large amounts of data effectively, supports cognitive processing, and increases data representation methods. However, there have been few attempts to empirically demonstrate whether adding interaction to a static visualization improves its function beyond popular beliefs. In this paper, we address this gap. We use a classic Bayesian reasoning task as a testbed for evaluating whether allowing users to interact with a static visualization can improve their reasoning. Through two crowdsourced studies, we show that adding interaction to a static Bayesian reasoning visualization does not improve participants' accuracy on a Bayesian reasoning task. In some cases, it can significantly detract from it. Moreover, we demonstrate that underlying visualization design modulates performance and that people with high versus low spatial ability respond differently to different interaction techniques and underlying base visualizations. Our work suggests that interaction is not as unambiguously good as we often believe; a well designed static visualization can be as, if not more, effective than an interactive one.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Expectation Versus Reality: The Failed Evaluation of a Mixed-Initiative Visualization System

Our research aimed to present the design and evaluation of a mixed-initiative system that aids the user in handling complex datasets and dense visualization systems. We attempted to demonstrate this system with two trials of an online between-groups, two-by-two study, measuring the effects of this mixed-initiative system on user interactions and system usability. However, due to flaws in the interface design and the expectations that we put on users, we were unable to show that the adaptive system had an impact on user interactions or system usability. In this paper, we discuss the unexpected findings that we found from our "failed" experiments and examine how we can learn from our failures to improve further research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Survey on Individual Differences in Visualization

Developments in data visualization research have enabled visualization systems to achieve great general usability and application across a variety of domains. These advancements have improved not only people's understanding of data, but also the general understanding of people themselves, and how they interact with visualization systems. In particular, researchers have gradually come to recognize the deficiency of having one-size-fits-all visualization interfaces, as well as the significance of individual differences in the use of data visualization systems. Unfortunately, the absence of comprehensive surveys of the existing literature impedes the development of this research. In this paper, we review the research perspectives, as well as the personality traits and cognitive abilities, visualizations, tasks, and measures investigated in the existing literature. We aim to provide a detailed summary of existing scholarship, produce evidence-based reviews, and spur future inquiry.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access