Small multiples are a popular visualization method, displaying different views of a dataset using multiple frames, often with the same scale and axes. However, there is a need to address their potential constraints, especially in the context of human cognitive capacity limits. These limits dictate the maximum information our mind can process at once. We explore the issue of capacity limitation by testing competing theories that describe how the number of frames shown in a display, the scale of the frames, and time constraints impact user performance with small multiples of line charts in an energy grid scenario. In two online studies (Experiment 1 n = 141 and Experiment 2 n = 360) and a follow-up eye-tracking analysis (n = 5), we found a linear decline in accuracy with increasing frames across seven tasks, which was not fully explained by differences in frame size, suggesting visual search challenges. Moreover, the studies demonstrate that highlighting specific frames can mitigate some visual search difficulties but, surprisingly, not eliminate them. This research offers insights into optimizing the utility of small multiples by aligning them with human limitations.

Many papers make claims about specific visualization techniques that are said to enhance or calibrate trust in AI systems. But a design choice that enhances trust in some cases appears to damage it in others. In this paper, we explore this inherent duality through an analogy with "knobs". Turning a knob too far in one direction may result in under-trust, too far in the other, over-trust or, turned up further still, in a confusing distortion. While the designs or so-called "knobs" are not inherently evil, they can be misused or used in an adversarial context and thereby manipulated to mislead users or promote unwarranted levels of trust in AI systems. When a visualization that has no meaningful connection with the underlying model or data is employed to enhance trust, we refer to the result as "trust junk." From a review of 65 papers, we identify nine commonly made claims about trust calibration. We synthesize them into a framework of knobs that can be used for good or "evil," and distill our findings into observed pitfalls for the responsible design of human-AI systems.

As uncertainty visualizations for general audiences become increasingly common, designers must understand the full impact of uncertainty communication techniques on viewers' decision processes. Prior work demonstrates mixed performance outcomes with respect to how individuals make decisions using various visual and textual depictions of uncertainty. Part of the inconsistency across findings may be due to an over-reliance on task accuracy, which cannot, on its own, provide a comprehensive understanding of how uncertainty visualization techniques support reasoning processes. In this work, we advance the debate surrounding the efficacy of modern 1D uncertainty visualizations by conducting converging quantitative and qualitative analyses of both the effort and strategies used by individuals when provided with quantile dotplots, density plots, interval plots, mean plots, and textual descriptions of uncertainty. We utilize two approaches for examining effort across uncertainty communication techniques: a measure of individual differences in working-memory capacity known as an operation span (OSPAN) task and self-reports of perceived workload via the NASA-TLX. The results reveal that both visualization methods and working-memory capacity impact participants' decisions. Specifically, quantile dotplots and density plots (i.e., distributional annotations) result in more accurate judgments than interval plots, textual descriptions of uncertainty, and mean plots (i.e., summary annotations). Additionally, participants' open-ended responses suggest that individuals viewing distributional annotations are more likely to employ a strategy that explicitly incorporates uncertainty into their judgments than those viewing summary annotations. When comparing quantile dotplots to density plots, this work finds that both methods are equally effective for low-working-memory individuals. However, for individuals with high-working-memory capacity, quantile dotplots evoke more accurate responses with less perceived effort. Given these results, we advocate for the inclusion of converging behavioral and subjective workload metrics in addition to accuracy performance to further disambiguate meaningful differences among visualization techniques.