Abstract Charts used for persuasion can easily veer into being outright misleading when, for instance, cherry‐picked data is paired with a deceptive caption, as is commonly encountered on social media. The rise of interactive time‐series data explorers for hotly debated topics makes such framing easy to produce and spread. Post‐hoc interventions like fact‐checking often arrive too late and suffer from persistence of belief. Prior work suggests that guardrails, in the form of contextual comparison lines embedded directly into charts, can reduce these effects. We propose and evaluate a practical set of guardrail sampling strategies for implementing such contextual lines in real systems. In a preregistered mixed‐design study with two real‐world scenarios (COVID‐19 and Stocks), participants viewed persuasive charts with different sets of guardrails and reported trust, estimated rank in the dataset, expressed their perceived completeness of context, as well as subjective preference for different tasks. Across scenarios, guardrails improved trust, accuracy of performance judgments, and perceived completeness of context compared to the control. Taken together, the study offers practical guardrail sampling methods, evidence of their contextual benefits, and insights into participants' preferences.

Data-driven decision making has become a popular practice in science, industry, and public policy. Yet data alone, as an imperfect and partial representation of reality, is often insufficient to make good analysis decisions. Knowledge about the context of a dataset, its strengths and weaknesses, and its applicability for certain tasks is essential. Analysts are often not only familiar with the data itself, but also have data hunches about their analysis subject. In this work, we present an interview study with analysts from a wide range of domains and with varied expertise and experience, inquiring about the role of contextual knowledge. We provide insights into how data is insufficient in analysts' workflows and how they incorporate other sources of knowledge into their analysis. We analyzed how knowledge of data shaped their analysis outcome. Based on the results, we suggest design opportunities to better and more robustly consider both knowledge and data in analysis processes.

Text in dashboards plays multiple critical roles, including providing context, offering insights, guiding interactions, and summarizing key information. Despite its importance, most dashboarding tools focus on visualizations and offer limited support for text authoring. To address this gap, we developed Plume, a system to help authors craft effective dashboard text. Through a formative review of exemplar dashboards, we created a typology of text parameters and articulated the relationship between visual placement and semantic connections, which informed Plume's design. Plume employs large language models (LLMs) to generate contextually appropriate content and provides guidelines for writing clear, readable text. A preliminary evaluation with 12 dashboard authors explored how assisted text authoring integrates into workflows, revealing strengths and limitations of LLM-generated text and the value of our human-in-the-loop approach. Our findings suggest opportunities to improve dashboard authoring tools by better supporting the diverse roles that text plays in conveying insights.

Attempting to make sense of a phenomenon or crisis, social media users often share data visualizations and interpretations that can be erroneous or misleading. Prior work has studied how data visualizations can mislead, but do misleading visualizations reach a broad social media audience? And if so, do users amplify or challenge misleading interpretations? To answer these questions, we conducted a mixed-methods analysis of the public’s engagement with data visualization posts about COVID-19 on Twitter. Compared to posts with accurate visual insights, our results show that posts with misleading visualizations garner more replies in which the audiences point out nuanced fallacies and caveats in data interpretations. Based on the results of our thematic analysis of engagement, we identify and discuss important opportunities and limitations to effectively leveraging crowdsourced assessments to address data-driven misinformation.

Data visualizations can empower an audience to make informed decisions. At the same time, deceptive representations of data can lead to inaccurate interpretations while still providing an illusion of data-driven insights. Existing research on misleading visualizations primarily focuses on examples of charts and techniques previously reported to be deceptive. These approaches do not necessarily describe how charts mislead the general population in practice. We instead present an analysis of data visualizations found in a real-world discourse of a significant global event—Twitter posts with visualizations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our work shows that, contrary to conventional wisdom, violations of visualization design guidelines are not the dominant way people mislead with charts. Specifically, they do not disproportionately lead to reasoning errors in posters’ arguments. Through a series of examples, we present common reasoning errors and discuss how even faithfully plotted data visualizations can be used to support misinformation.