Progressive visualization is fast becoming a technique in the visualization community to help users interact with large amounts of data. With progressive visualization, users can examine intermediate results of complex or long running computations, without waiting for the computation to complete. While this has shown to be beneficial to users, recent research has identified potential risks. For example, users may misjudge the uncertainty in the intermediate results and draw incorrect conclusions or see patterns that are not present in the final results. In this article, we conduct a comprehensive set of studies to quantify the advantages and limitations of progressive visualization. Based on a recent report by Micallef et al., we examine four types of cognitive biases that can occur with progressive visualization: uncertainty bias, illusion bias, control bias, and anchoring bias. The results of the studies suggest a cautious but promising use of progressive visualization - while there can be significant savings in task completion time, accuracy can be negatively affected in certain conditions. These findings confirm earlier reports of the benefits and drawbacks of progressive visualization and that continued research into mitigating the effects of cognitive biases is necessary.

Interaction enables users to navigate large amounts of data effectively, supports cognitive processing, and increases data representation methods. However, there have been few attempts to empirically demonstrate whether adding interaction to a static visualization improves its function beyond popular beliefs. In this paper, we address this gap. We use a classic Bayesian reasoning task as a testbed for evaluating whether allowing users to interact with a static visualization can improve their reasoning. Through two crowdsourced studies, we show that adding interaction to a static Bayesian reasoning visualization does not improve participants’ accuracy on a Bayesian reasoning task. In some cases, it can significantly detract from it. Moreover, we demonstrate that underlying visualization design modulates performance and that people with high versus low spatial ability respond differently to different interaction techniques and underlying base visualizations. Our work suggests that interaction is not as unambiguously good as we often believe; a well designed static visualization can be as, if not more, effective than an interactive one.

Abstract Many visual analytics systems allow users to interact with machine learning models towards the goals of data exploration and insight generation on a given dataset. However, in some situations, insights may be less important than the production of an accurate predictive model for future use. In that case, users are more interested in generating of diverse and robust predictive models, verifying their performance on holdout data, and selecting the most suitable model for their usage scenario. In this paper, we consider the concept of Exploratory Model Analysis (EMA), which is defined as the process of discovering and selecting relevant models that can be used to make predictions on a data source. We delineate the differences between EMA and the well‐known term exploratory data analysis in terms of the desired outcome of the analytic process: insights into the data or a set of deployable models. The contributions of this work are a visual analytics system workflow for EMA, a user study, and two use cases validating the effectiveness of the workflow. We found that our system workflow enabled users to generate complex models, to assess them for various qualities, and to select the most relevant model for their task.

When inspecting information visualizations under time critical settings, such as emergency response or monitoring the heart rate in a surgery room, the user only has a small amount of time to view the visualization "at a glance". In these settings, it is important to provide a quantitative measure of the visualization to understand whether or not the visualization is too "complex" to accurately judge at a glance. This paper proposes Pixel Approximate Entropy (PAE), which adapts the approximate entropy statistical measure commonly used to quantify regularity and unpredictability in time-series data, as a measure of visual complexity for line charts. We show that PAE is correlated with user-perceived chart complexity, and that increased chart PAE correlates with reduced judgement accuracy. 'We also find that the correlation between PAE values and participants' judgment increases when the user has less time to examine the line charts.