Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Katharina Rall

dblp:161/3206 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Visualization and visual analytics · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Visualization and visual analytics › graphical perception
chart perception
0.212015
How Deceptive are Deceptive Visualizations?: An Empirical Analysis of Common Distortion Techniques · CHI 2015
Visualization and visual analytics › visual communication
misleading visualization
0.212015
How Deceptive are Deceptive Visualizations?: An Empirical Analysis of Common Distortion Techniques · CHI 2015

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

crowdsourced user study · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 How Deceptive are Deceptive Visualizations?: An Empirical Analysis of Common Distortion Techniques
abstract
In this paper, we present an empirical analysis of deceptive visualizations. We start with an in-depth analysis of what deception means in the context of data visualization, and categorize deceptive visualizations based on the type of deception they lead to. We identify popular distortion techniques and the type of visualizations those distortions can be applied to, and formalize why deception occurs with those distortions. We create four deceptive visualizations using the selected distortion techniques, and run a crowdsourced user study to identify the deceptiveness of those visualizations. We then present the findings of our study and show how deceptive each of these visual distortion techniques are, and for what kind of questions the misinterpretation occurs. We also analyze individual differences among participants and present the effect of some of those variables on participants' responses. This paper presents a first step in empirically studying deceptive visualizations, and will pave the way for more research in this direction.
Anshul Vikram Pandey, Katharina Rall, Margaret Satterthwaite, Oded Nov, Enrico Bertini
CHI2