Research on affective visualization design has shown that color is an especially powerful feature for influencing the emotional connotation of visualizations. Associations between colors and emotions are largely driven by lightness (e.g., lighter colors are associated with positive emotions, whereas darker colors are associated with negative emotions). Designing visualizations to have all light or all dark colors to convey particular emotions may work well for visualizations in which colors represent categories and spatial channels encode data values. However, this approach poses a problem for visualizations that use color to represent spatial patterns in data (e.g., colormap data visualizations) because lightness contrast is needed to reveal fine details in spatial structure. In this study, we found it is possible to design colormaps that have strong lightness contrast to support spatial vision while communicating clear affective connotation. We also found that affective connotation depended not only on the color scales used to construct the colormaps, but also the frequency with which colors appeared in the map, as determined by the underlying dataset (data-dependence hypothesis). These results emphasize the importance of data-aware design, which accounts for not only the design features that encode data (e.g., colors, shapes, textures), but also how those design features are instantiated in a visualization, given the properties of the data.

People have expectations about how colors map to concepts in visualizations, and they are better at interpreting visualizations that match their expectations. Traditionally, studies on these expectations (inferred mappings) distinguished distinct factors relevant for visualizations of categorical vs. continuous information. Studies on categorical information focused on direct associations (e.g., mangos are associated with yellows) whereas studies on continuous information focused on relational associations (e.g., darker colors map to larger quantities; dark-is-more bias). We unite these two areas within a single framework of assignment inference. Assignment inference is the process by which people infer mappings between perceptual features and concepts represented in encoding systems. Observers infer globally optimal assignments by maximizing the "merit," or "goodness," of each possible assignment. Previous work on assignment inference focused on visualizations of categorical information. We extend this approach to visualizations of continuous data by (a) broadening the notion of merit to include relational associations and (b) developing a method for combining multiple (sometimes conflicting) sources of merit to predict people's inferred mappings. We developed and tested our model on data from experiments in which participants interpreted colormap data visualizations, representing fictitious data about environmental concepts (sunshine, shade, wild fire, ocean water, glacial ice). We found both direct and relational associations contribute independently to inferred mappings. These results can be used to optimize visualization design to facilitate visual communication.

People's associations between colors and concepts influence their ability to interpret the meanings of colors in information visualizations. Previous work has suggested such effects are limited to concepts that have strong, specific associations with colors. However, although a concept may not be strongly associated with any colors, its mapping can be disambiguated in the context of other concepts in an encoding system. We articulate this view in semantic discriminability theory, a general framework for understanding conditions determining when people can infer meaning from perceptual features. Semantic discriminability is the degree to which observers can infer a unique mapping between visual features and concepts. Semantic discriminability theory posits that the capacity for semantic discriminability for a set of concepts is constrained by the difference between the feature-concept association distributions across the concepts in the set. We define formal properties of this theory and test its implications in two experiments. The results show that the capacity to produce semantically discriminable colors for sets of concepts was indeed constrained by the statistical distance between color-concept association distributions (Experiment 1). Moreover, people could interpret meanings of colors in bar graphs insofar as the colors were semantically discriminable, even for concepts previously considered "non-colorable" (Experiment 2). The results suggest that colors are more robust for visual communication than previously thought.

To interpret information visualizations, observers must determine how visual features map onto concepts. First and foremost, this ability depends on perceptual discriminability; observers must be able to see the difference between different colors for those colors to communicate different meanings. However, the ability to interpret visualizations also depends on semantic discriminability, the degree to which observers can infer a unique mapping between visual features and concepts, based on the visual features and concepts alone (i.e., without help from verbal cues such as legends or labels). Previous evidence suggested that observers were better at interpreting encoding systems that maximized semantic discriminability (maximizing association strength between assigned colors and concepts while minimizing association strength between unassigned colors and concepts), compared to a system that only maximized color-concept association strength. However, increasing semantic discriminability also resulted in increased perceptual distance, so it is unclear which factor was responsible for improved performance. In the present study, we conducted two experiments that tested for independent effects of semantic distance and perceptual distance on semantic discriminability of bar graph data visualizations. Perceptual distance was large enough to ensure colors were more than just noticeably different. We found that increasing semantic distance improved performance, independent of variation in perceptual distance, and when these two factors were uncorrelated, responses were dominated by semantic distance. These results have implications for navigating trade-offs in color palette design optimization for visual communication.

To interpret the meanings of colors in visualizations of categorical information, people must determine how distinct colors correspond to different concepts. This process is easier when assignments between colors and concepts in visualizations match people's expectations, making color palettes semantically interpretable. Efforts have been underway to optimize color palette design for semantic interpretablity, but this requires having good estimates of human color-concept associations. Obtaining these data from humans is costly, which motivates the need for automated methods. We developed and evaluated a new method for automatically estimating color-concept associations in a way that strongly correlates with human ratings. Building on prior studies using Google Images, our approach operates directly on Google Image search results without the need for humans in the loop. Specifically, we evaluated several methods for extracting raw pixel content of the images in order to best estimate color-concept associations obtained from human ratings. The most effective method extracted colors using a combination of cylindrical sectors and color categories in color space. We demonstrate that our approach can accurately estimate average human color-concept associations for different fruits using only a small set of images. The approach also generalizes moderately well to more complicated recycling-related concepts of objects that can appear in any color.

To interpret data visualizations, people must determine how visual features map onto concepts. For example, to interpret colormaps, people must determine how dimensions of color (e.g., lightness, hue) map onto quantities of a given measure (e.g., brain activity, correlation magnitude). This process is easier when the encoded mappings in the visualization match people's predictions of how visual features will map onto concepts, their inferred mappings. To harness this principle in visualization design, it is necessary to understand what factors determine people's inferred mappings. In this study, we investigated how inferred color-quantity mappings for colormap data visualizations were influenced by the background color. Prior literature presents seemingly conflicting accounts of how the background color affects inferred color-quantity mappings. The present results help resolve those conflicts, demonstrating that sometimes the background has an effect and sometimes it does not, depending on whether the colormap appears to vary in opacity. When there is no apparent variation in opacity, participants infer that darker colors map to larger quantities (dark-is-more bias). As apparent variation in opacity increases, participants become biased toward inferring that more opaque colors map to larger quantities (opaque-is-more bias). These biases work together on light backgrounds and conflict on dark backgrounds. Under such conflicts, the opaque-is-more bias can negate, or even supersede the dark-is-more bias. The results suggest that if a design goal is to produce colormaps that match people's inferred mappings and are robust to changes in background color, it is beneficial to use colormaps that will not appear to vary in opacity on any background color, and to encode larger quantities in darker colors.

We present an evaluation of Colorgorical, a web-based tool for creating discriminable and aesthetically preferable categorical color palettes. Colorgorical uses iterative semi-random sampling to pick colors from CIELAB space based on user-defined discriminability and preference importances. Colors are selected by assigning each a weighted sum score that applies the user-defined importances to Perceptual Distance, Name Difference, Name Uniqueness, and Pair Preference scoring functions, which compare a potential sample to already-picked palette colors. After, a color is added to the palette by randomly sampling from the highest scoring palettes. Users can also specify hue ranges or build off their own starting palettes. This procedure differs from previous approaches that do not allow customization (e.g., pre-made ColorBrewer palettes) or do not consider visualization design constraints (e.g., Adobe Color and ACE). In a Palette Score Evaluation, we verified that each scoring function measured different color information. Experiment 1 demonstrated that slider manipulation generates palettes that are consistent with the expected balance of discriminability and aesthetic preference for 3-, 5-, and 8-color palettes, and also shows that the number of colors may change the effectiveness of pair-based discriminability and preference scores. For instance, if the Pair Preference slider were upweighted, users would judge the palettes as more preferable on average. Experiment 2 compared Colorgorical palettes to benchmark palettes (ColorBrewer, Microsoft, Tableau, Random). Colorgorical palettes are as discriminable and are at least as preferable or more preferable than the alternative palette sets. In sum, Colorgorical allows users to make customized color palettes that are, on average, as effective as current industry standards by balancing the importance of discriminability and aesthetic preference.

In this paper we make the following contributions: (1) we describe how the grouping, quantity, and size of visual marks affects search time based on the results from two experiments; (2) we report how search performance relates to self-reported difficulty in finding the target for different display types; and (3) we present design guidelines based on our findings to facilitate the design of effective visualizations. Both Experiment 1 and 2 asked participants to search for a unique target in colored visualizations to test how the grouping, quantity, and size of marks affects user performance. In Experiment 1, the target square was embedded in a grid of squares and in Experiment 2 the target was a point in a scatterplot. Search performance was faster when colors were spatially grouped than when they were randomly arranged. The quantity of marks had little effect on search time for grouped displays ("pop-out"), but increasing the quantity of marks slowed reaction time for random displays. Regardless of color layout (grouped vs. random), response times were slowest for the smallest mark size and decreased as mark size increased to a point, after which response times plateaued. In addition to these two experiments we also include potential application areas, as well as results from a small case study where we report preliminary findings that size may affect how users infer how visualizations should be used. We conclude with a list of design guidelines that focus on how to best create visualizations based on grouping, quantity, and size of visual marks.