Analysing personal datasets has traditionally been limited to ‘Quantified Selfers’ who commit significant effort into manually recording and analysing their data. However, the pool of Casual Users (CUs) who can engage with their personal data is increasing due to the prevalence of companies passively collecting user interaction data. In this paper, we execute an online survey exploring what kinds of information users seek about their music listening behaviour. We compare the information needs of CUs to identified Self-Trackers, using music listening as a lens to develop an information space. The paper culminates in a provocation to broaden the audience of personal informatics by updating existing models of interaction to account for casual users, passive data, and episodic reflection.

The adoption of responsible data science (RDS) practices in AI development remains inadequate despite growing awareness of algorithmic harms. One measure of success is by observing practitioners’ behaviors – namely, their adoption of responsible sequences of behaviors in their model building practice. This paper evaluates two interventions for changing problematic behaviors: (i) a motivational priming intervention that introduces short, relevant stories, and (ii) a fairness toolkit (Aequitas)—to bridge the gap between ethical principles and practitioner behavior. Through a mixed-methods study with data scientists (N=12), we assess how these interventions influence fairness practices, model outcomes, and cognitive load across credit risk and income classification tasks. Results indicate that both interventions were efficient in promoting responsible data science behaviors and improving the delivered models’ fairness, while maintaining baseline accuracy. We argue that effective behavior change interventions must balance technical tooling with motivational scaffolding to provide actionable insights for fostering sustainable RDS practices.

In Human-Computer Interaction, eliciting user attitudes and beliefs is crucial for understanding user interactions with technology. Existing elicitation methods range from expressive open-ended text to structured formats like Likert scales. Expressive methods yield rich insights but are difficult to systematically analyze. On the other hand, structured methods guide users to efficiently map attitudes and beliefs to clear visual scales, yet may oversimplify complex attitudes and beliefs. Recent work has explored alternative methods including visual elicitation techniques; however, the understanding of how users mentally represent attitudes and beliefs remains limited, making it challenging to validate the effectiveness of these techniques. Through a qualitative study of US-based participants (N=41), we captured how people mentally represent their attitudes and beliefs through free-form drawings and complementary textual descriptions. Our findings reveal how the strategies participants employed to represent attitudes and beliefs can inform the design of future visual elicitation techniques that balance both expressiveness and analyzability.

Data science pipelines inform and influence many daily decisions, from what we buy to who we work for and even where we live. When designed incorrectly, these pipelines can easily propagate social inequity and harm. Traditional solutions are technical in nature; e.g., mitigating biased algorithms. In this vision paper, we introduce a novel lens for promoting responsible data science using theories of behavior change that emphasize not only technical solutions but also the behavioral responsibility of practitioners. By integrating behavior change theories from cognitive psychology with data science workflow knowledge and ethics guidelines, we present a new perspective on responsible data science. We present example data science interventions in machine learning and visual data analysis, contextualized in behavior change theories that could be implemented to interrupt and redirect potentially suboptimal or negligent practices while reinforcing ethically conscious behaviors. We conclude with a call to action to our community to explore this new research area of behavior change interventions for responsible data science.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) is a metacognitive phenomenon where low-skilled individuals tend to overestimate their competence while high-skilled individuals tend to underestimate their competence. This effect has been observed in a number of domains including humor, grammar, and logic. In this paper, we explore if and how DKE manifests in visual reasoning and judgment tasks. Across two online user studies involving (1) a sliding puzzle game and (2) a scatterplot-based categorization task, we demonstrate that individuals are susceptible to DKE in visual reasoning and judgment tasks: those who performed best underestimated their performance, while bottom performers overestimated their performance. In addition, we contribute novel analyses that correlate susceptibility of DKE with personality traits and user interactions. Our findings pave the way for novel modes of bias detection via interaction patterns and establish promising directions towards interventions tailored to an individual's personality traits. All materials and analyses are in supplemental materials: https://github.com/CAV-Lab/DKE_supplemental.git.

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.

Data visualizations help extract insights from datasets, but reaching these insights requires decomposing high level goals into low-level analytic tasks that can be complex due to varying degrees of data literacy and visualization experience. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for lowering barriers for users to achieve tasks such as writing code and may likewise facilitate visualization insight. Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG), a text-based image format common in data visualizations, matches well with the text sequence processing of transformer-based LLMs. In this paper, we explore the capability of LLMs to perform 10 low-level visual analytic tasks defined by Amar, Eagan, and Stasko directly on SVG-based visualizations [2]. Using zero-shot prompts, we instruct the models to provide responses or modify the SVG code based on given visualizations. Our findings demonstrate that LLMs can effectively modify existing SVG visualizations for some tasks like Cluster but perform poorly on tasks requiring mathematical operations like Compute Derived Value. We also discovered that LLM performance can vary based on factors such as the number of data points, the presence of value labels, and the chart type. Our findings contribute to gauging the general capabilities of LLMs and highlight the need for further exploration and development to fully harness their potential in supporting visual analytic tasks.

Distributed tracing tools have emerged in recent years to enable operators of modern internet applications to troubleshoot cross-component problems in deployed applications. Due to the rich, detailed diagnostic data captured by distributed tracing tools, effectively presenting this data is important. However, use of visualisation to enable sensemaking of this complex data in distributed tracing tools has received relatively little attention. Consequently, operators struggle to make effective use of existing tools. In this article we present the first characterisation of distributed tracing visualisation through a qualitative interview study with six practitioners from two large internet companies. Across two rounds of 1-on-1 interviews we use grounded theory coding to establish users, extract concrete use cases and identify shortcomings of existing distributed tracing tools. We derive guidelines for development of future distributed tracing tools and expose several open research problems that have wide reaching implications for visualisation research and other domains.

Abstract When individuals encounter new information (data), that information is incorporated with their existing beliefs (prior) to form a new belief (posterior) in a process referred to as belief updating. While most studies on rational belief updating in visual data analysis elicit beliefs immediately after data is shown, we posit that there may be critical movement in an individual's beliefs when elicited immediately after data is shown v. after a temporal delay (e.g., due to forgetfulness or weak incorporation of the data). Our paper investigates the hypothesis that posterior beliefs elicited after a time interval will “decay” back towards the prior beliefs compared to the posterior beliefs elicited immediately after new data is presented. In this study, we recruit 101 participants to complete three tasks where beliefs are elicited immediately after seeing new data and again after a brief distractor task. We conduct (1) a quantitative analysis of the results to understand if there are any systematic differences in beliefs elicited immediately after seeing new data or after a distractor task and (2) a qualitative analysis of participants' reflections on the reasons for their belief update. While we find no statistically significant global trends across the participants beliefs elicited immediately v. after the delay, the qualitative analysis provides rich insight into the reasons for an individual's belief movement across 9 prototypical scenarios, which includes (i) decay of beliefs as a result of either forgetting the information shown or strongly held prior beliefs, (ii) strengthening of confidence in updated beliefs by positively integrating the new data and (iii) maintaining a consistently updated belief over time, among others. These results can guide subsequent experiments to disambiguate when and by what mechanism new data is truly incorporated into one's belief system.

Abstract The process of forming, expressing, and updating beliefs from data plays a critical role in data‐driven decision making. Effectively eliciting those beliefs has potential for high impact across a broad set of applications, including increased engagement with data and visualizations, personalizing visualizations, and understanding users' visual reasoning processes, which can inform improved data analysis and decision making strategies (e.g., via bias mitigation). Recently, belief‐driven visualizations have been used to elicit and visualize readers' beliefs in a visualization alongside data in narrative media and data journalism platforms such as the New York Times and FiveThirtyEight. However, there is little research on different aspects that constitute designing an effective belief‐driven visualization. In this paper, we synthesize a design space for belief‐driven visualizations based on formative and summative interviews with designers and visualization experts. The design space includes 7 main design considerations, beginning with an assumed data set, then structured according to: from who, why, when, what, and how the belief is elicited, and the possible feedback about the belief that may be provided to the visualization viewer. The design space covers considerations such as the type of data parameter with optional uncertainty being elicited, interaction techniques, and visual feedback, among others. Finally, we describe how more than 24 existing belief‐driven visualizations from popular news media outlets span the design space and discuss trends and opportunities within this space.

Visual data analysis tools provide people with the agency and flexibility to explore data using a variety of interactive functionalities. However, this flexibility may introduce potential consequences in situations where users unknowingly overemphasize or underemphasize specific subsets of the data or attribute space they are analyzing. For example, users may overemphasize specific attributes and/or their values (e.g., Gender is always encoded on the X axis), underemphasize others (e.g., Religion is never encoded), ignore a subset of the data (e.g., older people are filtered out), etc. In response, we present Lumos, a visual data analysis tool that captures and shows the interaction history with data to increase awareness of such analytic behaviors. Using in-situ (at the place of interaction) and ex-situ (in an external view) visualization techniques, Lumos provides real-time feedback to users for them to reflect on their activities. For example, Lumos highlights datapoints that have been previously examined in the same visualization (in-situ) and also overlays them on the underlying data distribution (i.e., baseline distribution) in a separate visualization (ex-situ). Through a user study with 24 participants, we investigate how Lumos helps users' data exploration and decision-making processes. We found that Lumos increases users' awareness of visual data analysis practices in real-time, promoting reflection upon and acknowledgement of their intentions and potentially influencing subsequent interactions.

There are a few prominent practices for conducting reviews of academic literature, including searching for specific keywords on Google Scholar or checking citations from some initial seed paper(s). These approaches serve a critical purpose for academic literature reviews, yet there remain challenges in identifying relevant literature when similar work may utilize different terminology (e.g., mixed-initiative visual analytics papers may not use the same terminology as papers on model-steering, yet the two topics are relevant to one another). In this paper, we introduce a system, VITALITY, intended to complement existing practices. In particular, VITALITY promotes serendipitous discovery of relevant literature using transformer language models, allowing users to find semantically similar papers in a word embedding space given (1) a list of input paper(s) or (2) a working abstract. VITALITY visualizes this document-level embedding space in an interactive 2-D scatterplot using dimension reduction. VITALITY also summarizes meta information about the document corpus or search query, including keywords and co-authors, and allows users to save and export papers for use in a literature review. We present qualitative findings from an evaluation of VITALITY, suggesting it can be a promising complementary technique for conducting academic literature reviews. Furthermore, we contribute data from 38 popular data visualization publication venues in VITALITY, and we provide scrapers for the open-source community to continue to grow the list of supported venues.

Human biases impact the way people analyze data and make decisions. Recent work has shown that some visualization designs can better support cognitive processes and mitigate cognitive biases (i.e., errors that occur due to the use of mental "shortcuts"). In this work, we explore how visualizing a user's interaction history (i.e., which data points and attributes a user has interacted with) can be used to mitigate potential biases that drive decision making by promoting conscious reflection of one's analysis process. Given an interactive scatterplot-based visualization tool, we showed interaction history in real-time while exploring data (by coloring points in the scatterplot that the user has interacted with), and in a summative format after a decision has been made (by comparing the distribution of user interactions to the underlying distribution of the data). We conducted a series of in-lab experiments and a crowd-sourced experiment to evaluate the effectiveness of interaction history interventions toward mitigating bias. We contextualized this work in a political scenario in which participants were instructed to choose a committee of 10 fictitious politicians to review a recent bill passed in the U.S. state of Georgia banning abortion after 6 weeks, where things like gender bias or political party bias may drive one's analysis process. We demonstrate the generalizability of this approach by evaluating a second decision making scenario related to movies. Our results are inconclusive for the effectiveness of interaction history (henceforth referred to as interaction traces) toward mitigating biased decision making. However, we find some mixed support that interaction traces, particularly in a summative format, can increase awareness of potential unconscious biases.

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.

People often rank and order data points as a vital part of making decisions. Multi-attribute ranking systems are a common tool used to make these data-driven decisions. Such systems often take the form of a table-based visualization in which users assign weights to the attributes representing the quantifiable importance of each attribute to a decision, which the system then uses to compute a ranking of the data. However, these systems assume that users are able to quantify their conceptual understanding of how important particular attributes are to a decision. This is not always easy or even possible for users to do. Rather, people often have a more holistic understanding of the data. They form opinions that data point A is better than data point B but do not necessarily know which attributes are important. To address these challenges, we present a visual analytic application to help people rank multi-variate data points. We developed a prototype system, Podium, that allows users to drag rows in the table to rank order data points based on their perception of the relative value of the data. Podium then infers a weighting model using Ranking SVM that satisfies the user's data preferences as closely as possible. Whereas past systems help users understand the relationships between data points based on changes to attribute weights, our approach helps users to understand the attributes that might inform their understanding of the data. We present two usage scenarios to describe some of the potential uses of our proposed technique: (1) understanding which attributes contribute to a user's subjective preferences for data, and (2) deconstructing attributes of importance for existing rankings. Our proposed approach makes powerful machine learning techniques more usable to those who may not have expertise in these areas.

Visual analytics techniques help users explore high-dimensional data. However, it is often challenging for users to express their domain knowledge in order to steer the underlying data model, especially when they have little attribute-level knowledge. Furthermore, users' complex, high-level domain knowledge, compared to low-level attributes, posits even greater challenges. To overcome these challenges, we introduce a technique to interpret a user's drawings with an interactive, nonlinear axis mapping approach called AxiSketcher. This technique enables users to impose their domain knowledge on a visualization by allowing interaction with data entries rather than with data attributes. The proposed interaction is performed through directly sketching lines over the visualization. Using this technique, users can draw lines over selected data points, and the system forms the axes that represent a nonlinear, weighted combination of multidimensional attributes. In this paper, we describe our techniques in three areas: 1) the design space of sketching methods for eliciting users' nonlinear domain knowledge; 2) the underlying model that translates users' input, extracts patterns behind the selected data points, and results in nonlinear axes reflecting users' complex intent; and 3) the interactive visualization for viewing, assessing, and reconstructing the newly formed, nonlinear axes.