Multiple forecast visualizations (MFVs) present curated sets of forecasts to support decision-making under uncertainty. However, the research community knows little about how people interpret and integrate competing forecasts. In this study, we investigate the strategies individuals use when predicting hypothetical future events with MFVs across five visualization types (median, 95% CIs, standard deviation intervals, density plots, and hypothetical outcome plots) and multiple probability distributions in two preregistered experiments (n = 500 each). Analysis of 18 participant strategies and open responses shows that whereas many participants attempted to visually average across forecasts, others adopted a winner-takes-all approach (e.g., selecting a single forecast as the most likely outcome), which deviates from rational agent expectations. We also observed reliance on visual artifacts, such as intersection points or end caps. These findings underscore the complexity of interpreting a range of forecasts and help explain why individuals may privilege particular predictions in real-world decision contexts.

Abstract Affordances, originating in psychology, describe how an object's design influences the physical and cognitive actions users may take. Past work applied affordance theory to visualization to explain how design decisions can impact the cognitive actions of visualization readers. In this work, we demonstrate that affordances can complement effectiveness rankings by further explaining the root causes behind visualizations' task performance. To do so, we conduct a case study on static normal probability density function plots, identifying their current affordances. Next, we identify the optimal affordances for a common probability‐comparison task and develop a novel affordance‐driven visualization, the Croissant Chart, to support them. We empirically validate the design's effectiveness through a preregistered study (n = 808), demonstrating how affordances can inform predictable changes in task performance. Our findings underscore the potential for affordance‐based approaches to enhance visualization effectiveness and inform future design decisions.

Probability density function (PDF) curves are among the few charts on a Cartesian coordinate system that are commonly presented without y-axes. This design decision may be due to the lack of relevance of vertical scaling in normal PDFs. In fact, as long as two normal PDFs have the same means and standard deviations (SDs), they can be scaled to occupy different amounts of vertical space while still remaining statistically identical. Because unfixed PDF height increases as SD decreases, visualization designers may find themselves tempted to vertically shrink low-SD PDFs to avoid occlusion or save white space in their figures. Although irregular vertical scaling has been explored in bar and line charts, the visualization community has yet to investigate how this visual manipulation may affect reader comparisons of PDFs. In this paper, we present two preregistered experiments (n = 600, n = 401) that systematically demonstrate that vertical scaling can lead to misinterpretations of PDFs. We also test visual interventions to mitigate misinterpretation. In some contexts, we find including a y-axis can help reduce this effect. Overall, we find that keeping vertical scaling consistent, and therefore maintaining equal pixel areas under PDF curves, results in the highest likelihood of accurate comparisons. Our findings provide insights into the impact of vertical scaling on PDFs, and reveal the complicated nature of proportional area comparisons.

Classically, affordance research investigates how the shape of objects communicates actions to potential users. Cognitive affordances, a subset of this research, characterize how the design of objects influences cognitive actions, such as information processing. Within visualization, cognitive affordances inform how graphs' design decisions communicate information to their readers. Although several related concepts exist in visualization, a formal translation of affordance theory to visualization is still lacking. In this paper, we review and translate affordance theory to visualization by formalizing how cognitive affordances operate within a visualization context. We also review common methods and terms, and compare related constructs to cognitive affordances in visualization. Based on a synthesis of research from psychology, human-computer interaction, and visualization, we propose a framework of cognitive affordances in visualization that enumerates design decisions and reader characteristics that influence a visualization's hierarchy of communicated information. Finally, we demonstrate how this framework can guide the evaluation and redesign of visualizations.

Reconstruction of 3D scenes from 2D images is a technical challenge that impacts domains from Earth and planetary sciences and space exploration to augmented and virtual reality. Typically, reconstruction algorithms first identify common features across images and then minimize reconstruction errors after estimating the shape of the terrain. This bundle adjustment (BA) step optimizes around a single, simplifying scalar value that obfuscates many possible causes of reconstruction errors (e.g., initial estimate of the position and orientation of the camera, lighting conditions, ease of feature detection in the terrain). Reconstruction errors can lead to inaccurate scientific inferences or endanger a spacecraft exploring a remote environment. To address this challenge, we present VECTOR, a visual analysis tool that improves error inspection for stereo reconstruction BA. VECTOR provides analysts with previously unavailable visibility into feature locations, camera pose, and computed 3D points. VECTOR was developed in partnership with the Perseverance Mars Rover and Ingenuity Mars Helicopter terrain reconstruction team at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We report on how this tool was used to debug and improve terrain reconstruction for the Mars 2020 mission.

Data visualizations present a massive number of potential messages to an observer. One might notice that one group's average is larger than another's, or that a difference in values is smaller than a difference between two others, or any of a combinatorial explosion of other possibilities. The message that a viewer tends to notice - the message that a visualization 'affords' - is strongly affected by how values are arranged in a chart, e.g., how the values are colored or positioned. Although understanding the mapping between a chart's arrangement and what viewers tend to notice is critical for creating guidelines and recommendation systems, current empirical work is insufficient to lay out clear rules. We present a set of empirical evaluations of how different messages-including ranking, grouping, and part-to-whole relationships-are afforded by variations in ordering, partitioning, spacing, and coloring of values, within the ubiquitous case study of bar graphs. In doing so, we introduce a quantitative method that is easily scalable, reviewable, and replicable, laying groundwork for further investigation of the effects of arrangement on message affordances across other visualizations and tasks. Pre-registration and all supplemental materials are available at https://osf.io/np3q7 and https://osf.io/bvy95, respectively.

The prevalence of inadequate SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) responses may indicate a lack of trust in forecasts and risk communication. However, no work has empirically tested how multiple forecast visualization choices impact trust and task-based performance. The three studies presented in this paper ( N=1299) examine how visualization choices impact trust in COVID-19 mortality forecasts and how they influence performance in a trend prediction task. These studies focus on line charts populated with real-time COVID-19 data that varied the number and color encoding of the forecasts and the presence of best/worst-case forecasts. The studies reveal that trust in COVID-19 forecast visualizations initially increases with the number of forecasts and then plateaus after 6-9 forecasts. However, participants were most trusting of visualizations that showed less visual information, including a 95% confidence interval, single forecast, and grayscale encoded forecasts. Participants maintained high trust in intervals labeled with 50% and 25% and did not proportionally scale their trust to the indicated interval size. Despite the high trust, the 95% CI condition was the most likely to evoke predictions that did not correspond with the actual COVID-19 trend. Qualitative analysis of participants' strategies confirmed that many participants trusted both the simplistic visualizations and those with numerous forecasts. This work provides practical guides for how COVID-19 forecast visualizations influence trust, including recommendations for identifying the range where forecasts balance trade-offs between trust and task-based performance.