Kim Sauvé
David Verweij
Steven Houben
ABSTRACT
Composite data physicalizations allow for the physical reconfiguration of data points, creating new opportunities for interaction and engagement. However, there is a lack of understanding of people’s strategies and behaviors when directly manipulating physical data objects. In this paper, we systematically characterize different reconfiguration strategies using six exemplar physicalizations. We asked 20 participants to reorganize these exemplars with two levels of restriction: changing a single data object versus changing multiple data objects. Our findings show that there were two main reconfiguration strategies used: changes in proximity and changes in atomic orientation. We further characterize these using concrete examples of participant actions in relation to the structure of the physicalizations. We contribute an overview of reconfiguration strategies, which informs the design of future manually reconfigurable and dynamic composite physicalizations.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
- Jason Alexander, Anne Roudaut, Jürgen Steimle, Kasper Hornbæk, Miguel Bruns Alonso, Sean Follmer, and Timothy Merritt. 2018. Grand Challenges in Shape-Changing Interface Research. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173873Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Laura Armstrong and Lawrence E. Marks. 1999. Haptic perception of linear extent. Perception & Psychophysics 61, 6 (1999), 1211–1226.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fred Attneave and Malcolm D. Arnoult. 1956. The quantitative study of shape and pattern perception.Psychological bulletin 53, 6 (1956), 452.Google Scholar
- David L. Davies and Donald W. Bouldin. 1979. A Cluster Separation Measure. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence PAMI-1, 2(1979), 224–227. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.1979.4766909Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pierre Dragicevic and Yvonne Jansen. 2012. List of Physical Visualizations. www.dataphys.org/list. Last accessed Nov 2020.Google Scholar
- Madison A. Elliott, Christine Nothelfer, Cindy Xiong, and Danielle Albers Szafir. 2020. A Design Space of Vision Science Methods for Visualization Research. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3029413Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aluna Everitt, Faisal Taher, and Jason Alexander. 2016. ShapeCanvas: An Exploration of Shape-Changing Content Generation by Members of the Public. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2778–2782. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858316Google ScholarDigital Library
- Danyang Fan, Alexa Fay Siu, Sile O’Modhrain, and Sean Follmer. 2020. Constructive Visualization to Inform the Design and Exploration of Tactile Data Representations. In The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Virtual Event, Greece) (ASSETS ’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 60, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3418027Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sean Follmer, Daniel Leithinger, Alex Olwal, Akimitsu Hogge, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2013. InFORM: Dynamic Physical Affordances and Constraints through Shape and Object Actuation. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (St. Andrews, Scotland, United Kingdom) (UIST ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1145/2501988.2502032Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pauline Gourlet and Thierry Dassé. 2017. Cairn: A Tangible Apparatus for Situated Data Collection, Visualization and Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (DIS ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064794Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jeffrey Heer and Michael Bostock. 2010. Crowdsourcing Graphical Perception: Using Mechanical Turk to Assess Visualization Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753357Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eva Hornecker and Jacob Buur. 2006. Getting a Grip on Tangible Interaction: A Framework on Physical Space and Social Interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montréal, Québec, Canada) (CHI ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124838Google ScholarDigital Library
- Samuel Huron, Sheelagh Carpendale, Alice Thudt, Anthony Tang, and Michael Mauerer. 2014. Constructive Visualization. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (DIS ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598566Google ScholarDigital Library
- Samuel Huron, Yvonne Jansen, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2014. Constructing Visual Representations: Investigating the Use of Tangible Tokens. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12(2014), 2102–2111. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346292Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yvonne Jansen and Pierre Dragicevic. 2013. An Interaction Model for Visualizations Beyond The Desktop. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 19, 12(2013), 2396–2405. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2013.134Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yvonne Jansen, Pierre Dragicevic, and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2013. Evaluating the Efficiency of Physical Visualizations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2593–2602. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481359Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yvonne Jansen, Pierre Dragicevic, Petra Isenberg, Jason Alexander, Abhijit Karnik, Johan Kildal, Sriram Subramanian, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2015. Opportunities and Challenges for Data Physicalization. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3227–3236. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702180Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yvonne Jansen and Kasper Hornbæk. 2016. A Psychophysical Investigation of Size as a Physical Variable. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 22, 1(2016), 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467951Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rohit Ashok Khot, Jeewon Lee, Larissa Hjorth, and Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller. 2014. SweatAtoms: Understanding Physical Activity through Material Artifacts. In CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI EA ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 173–174. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2579479Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Kirsh. 1995. The Intelligent Use of Space. Artificial Intelligence 73, 1–2 (1995), 31–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)00017-UGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Kurt Koffka. 2013. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. The International Library of Psychology, Vol. 44. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Mathieu Le Goc, Lawrence H. Kim, Ali Parsaei, Jean-Daniel Fekete, Pierre Dragicevic, and Sean Follmer. 2016. Zooids: Building Blocks for Swarm User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Tokyo, Japan) (UIST ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1145/2984511.2984547Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mathieu Le Goc, Charles Perin, Sean Follmer, Jean-Daniel Fekete, and Pierre Dragicevic. 2018. Dynamic Composite Data Physicalization Using Wheeled Micro-Robots. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 1(2018), 737–747. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2865159Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daniel Leithinger and Hiroshi Ishii. 2010. Relief: A Scalable Actuated Shape Display. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) (TEI ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 221–222. https://doi.org/10.1145/1709886.1709928Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhicheng Liu and John Stasko. 2010. Mental Models, Visual Reasoning and Interaction in Information Visualization: A Top-down Perspective. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16, 6(2010), 999–1008. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2010.177Google ScholarDigital Library
- Deborah Lupton. 2017. Feeling your data: Touch and making sense of personal digital data. New Media & Society 19, 10 (2017), 1599–1614.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tamara Munzner. 2014. Visualization Analysis and Design. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL, United States.Google Scholar
- Majken K. Rasmussen, Esben W. Pedersen, Marianne G. Petersen, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2012. Shape-Changing Interfaces: A Review of the Design Space and Open Research Questions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 735–744. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207781Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kim Sauvé, Dominic Potts, Jason Alexander, and Steven Houben. 2020. A Change of Perspective: How User Orientation Influences the Perception of Physicalizations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376312Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stephen Smart and Danielle Albers Szafir. 2019. Measuring the Separability of Shape, Size, and Color in Scatterplots. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300899Google ScholarDigital Library
- Miriam Sturdee, John Hardy, Nick Dunn, and Jason Alexander. 2015. A Public Ideation of Shape-Changing Applications. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Interactive Tabletops & Surfaces (Madeira, Portugal) (ITS ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1145/2817721.2817734Google ScholarDigital Library
- Simon Stusak, Aurélien Tabard, Franziska Sauka, Rohit Ashok Khot, and Andreas Butz. 2014. Activity Sculptures: Exploring the Impact of Physical Visualizations on Running Activity. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12(2014), 2201–2210. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2014.2352953Google ScholarCross Ref
- Faisal Taher, John Hardy, Abhijit Karnik, Christian Weichel, Yvonne Jansen, Kasper Hornbæk, and Jason Alexander. 2015. Exploring Interactions with Physically Dynamic Bar Charts. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3237–3246. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702604Google ScholarDigital Library
- Faisal Taher, Yvonne Jansen, Jonathan Woodruff, John Hardy, Kasper Hornbæk, and Jason Alexander. 2017. Investigating the Use of a Dynamic Physical Bar Chart for Data Exploration and Presentation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1(2017), 451–460. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598498Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alice Thudt, Uta Hinrichs, Samuel Huron, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2018. Self-Reflection and Personal Physicalization Construction. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173728Google ScholarDigital Library
- Colin Ware. 2019. Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann, Cambridge MA, United States.Google Scholar
- Tiffany Wun, Jennifer Payne, Samuel Huron, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2016. Comparing Bar Chart Authoring with Microsoft Excel and Tangible Tiles. Computer Graphics Forum 35, 3 (2016), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12887Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Reconfiguration Strategies with Composite Data Physicalizations
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Physecology: A Conceptual Framework to Describe Data Physicalizations in their Real-World Context
The standard definition for “physicalizations” is “a physical artifact whose geometry or material properties encode data” [47]. While this working definition provides the fundamental groundwork for conceptualizing physicalization, in practice many ...
Opportunities and Challenges for Data Physicalization
CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsPhysical representations of data have existed for thousands of years. Yet it is now that advances in digital fabrication, actuated tangible interfaces, and shape-changing displays are spurring an emerging area of research that we call Data ...
Put a Label On It! Approaches for Constructing and Contextualizing Bar Chart Physicalizations
CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsPhysicalizations represent data through their tangible and material properties. In contrast to screen-based visualizations, there is currently very limited understanding of how to label or annotate physicalizations to support people in interpreting the ...
Comments