IDV | Communication and Visualisation

170518| GRS60312

Ron van Lammeren

Maps for monitoring

2/47

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/business/ibm-takes-smarter-cities-concept-to-rio-de-janeiro.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

What type of design?

http://www.marinetraffic.com/

Learning outcomes*

Design and develop a Digital Earth application for a specified use case

according to the concepts of integration in the geo-information cycle

Demonstrate the understanding of the proper use of GIS- and remote

sensing concepts, methods and data

when carrying out a project from A to Z.

*course guide GRS60312 – 2016/2017

3/47

Maps for Monitoring

4/43

Communication

sender

Just bought a dog

A big one ?

No, not so big ...

Long hair?

No, short hair !

What colour?

White black spotted...

What a nice dog !

Isn’t it ?

receiver sender

receiver

5/47

GeoVisualization

Geovisualization can be described as a loosely bounded domain that addresses the visual exploration, analysis, synthesis and presentation of geospatial data by integrating approaches from cartography with those from other information representation and analysis disciplines, including scientific visualisation, image analysis, information visualisation, exploratory data analysis and GI Science“ Kraak 2005, after Dykes, et al., 2005

6/46 Roth, 2013

Anologue vs Web Maps

Roth, 2013

7/47

Geo-visualization communication

Sender: geo-referenced message

Receiver:(un) intended interpretation

interface

geo-visualisation

interface

8/47

Geo-visualisation 2-way communication

Receiver: (un) intended information (data)

Sender: intended message

interface

geo-visualisation

interface

Visualization of geo-data

static-dynamic?

2D-3D?

Interface design

What interaction?

9/47

Interaction Design

setup

- Need to Know : N2K

- Usability

User centered design

Usability evaluation

- Trends

?

?

design evaluate

Interaction design: designing interactive products to support the way people

communicate and interact in their everyday and working lives

IDV: designing ‘interactive’ product [ ‘digital earth’ ] to support user groups to

communicate about real world phenomena

2 items - visualisation of geodata - interaction with visualised geodata

10/47

Visualisation knowledge

KA |Cartography and Visualization

o History and trends

o Data considerations

oPrinciples of Map Design

o Graphic presentation techniques

o Map production

o Map use and Evaluation

BoK, Geo-Information (2006, DiBiase)

11/47

Principles of map design What knowledge may help ?

Data _ ΔT Data visualization

12/47

13/32

Geo-data and geo-data visualization

Geo-data

‘Single’ Visual

‘Multiple’ Visuals

‘Sensors’

Usability

Frameworks

‘3D’

‘2D’

Data Visualisation Communication Data collecting

http://www.objectvision.hosting.it-rex.nl/ 13/47

14/32

1a

1b

3a

4b

4a 2a

2b

2c 3b

1b transformation

2d

production flow

Lammeren et al, 2007

Geo-visualisation : Transformations

14/47

N2K ?

G.Bertin – cartographic semiotics

C.Ware - gestalt theory [ http://bit.ly/1svCxty ] and

perception mechanisms

S.Few - graphs and diagrams

C.Brewer - colour use [ http://colorbrewer2.org/ ]

J.Itten - colour harmony

E.Tufte - visualization of quantitative data

S.Sheppard - 3D visualisation quality issues

A.MacEachren – visual analytics – geodata visualisation

G.Andrienko - visual analytics – location based / tracks

A.Cairo - infographics, colour harmony

Rogers et al. - Human Computer Interaction | Usability

Dodge, Kitchin, Perkins 2011 15/47

Interactive visualisations

What interaction?

Visual display and RV continuum

user based apps

old methods in latest technology

internet/web based

Nothelfer et al, 2008 AGILE, 2017

17/47

Usability of Geo-Data Visualizations

Usability Making products and systems easier to use,

and

matching them more closely to user needs and requirements

International standard, ISO 9241-11:

The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to

achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction

in a specified context of use.

www.usabilitynet.org

http://icaci.org/research-agenda/usability-of-maps-and-gi/

18/47

Usability goals

Effective to use (effectiveness)

Efficient to use (efficiency)

Safe to use (safety, error tolerant)

Have good utility (in line with required tasks)

Easy to learn (learnability)

Easy to remember how to use (memorability)

Rogers, Sharp, Preece 2011

19/47

20/32

‘Digital Earth’ Usability

Sheppard, 2001 van Lammeren, 2007

20/47

User experience goals

Desirable aspects

● Satisfying, enjoyable, challenging, helpful, pro-active, ..

Undesirable aspects

● Frustrating, Boring, Patronizing, Cutesy, ..

The users - who is using the product?

highly trained and experienced users, or novices?

Their goals - what are the users trying to do with the product

does it support what they want to do with it?

The usage situation (or 'context of use')

where and how is the product being used?

Rogers, Sharp, Preece 2011

What to support the user’s interest?

21/47

Process of interaction design

User centered

Personas & requirements

Design principles

Demonstrator / Prototype

Evaluate

“ the user never makes an error “

Wassink et al 2008

Applying a user-centered development cycle to interactive visualization design

22/47

Engineering/Design stages

1. Early envisioning phase

Analysis of current situation (users, environments, tasks)

- personas and requirements

2. Global specification phase of early prototypes

Design (by use scenarios), Proposal of solutions, Present to users and

other stakeholders

3. Detailed specification phase of complete prototypes

Based on evaluation of 2.; visual representation and interaction styles

Rogers, Sharp, Preece 2011

http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/13407stds.htm

23/47

Early envisioning : Personas

personal characteristics, activities, interests that may lead to use scenarios

Rich descriptions of typical user of the product.

Personas represent a synthesis of a number of real people and

are characterized by a unique set of goals relating to the product intended.

Personas profiles Psychological characteristics: cognitive style, motivation Knowledge and experience: ranking novices to experts Physical discomfort: colour blind, pattern recognition Task related: role, frequency of use

24/47

Techniques to define Personas

Questionnaires (many users, difficult to design)

Interviews (exploring, time consuming)

Existing documentation (trustworthy?)

Observation (creates understanding, time consuming)

Participation

Focus groups

Develop Use Scenarios

How to create Personas?

Haklay & Zafiri 2008 25/47

User Requirements

Statement about an intended product that specifies what it should do or how it should perform (Rogers et al, 2011; p 355)

Requirements describe the formal specifications required to implement the system

Lessons !!!

o !! mistakes in a final product are expensive !!

o do not decide for the user, but check with the users

o produce a stable set of requirements (eg Volere skeleton template chapters 9/17)

o getting requirements right is crucial

o Setting requirements generates most failures

o try to understand underlying needs

http://www.volere.co.uk/template.htm

26/47

Specify a Demonstrator

Hierarchal Task Analysis and Story Board

Roest, Pieters, Bosch, 2015 27/47

Interaction design principles

• Visibility highly visibly attracts attention

• Feedback important to know how to continue

• Constraints eg. deactivating options

• Consistency locations on a screen

• Affordance a mouse button affords to click, a door handle to push

Rogers, Preece, Sharp, 2011

http://asktog.com/atc/principles-of-interaction-design/

How about ArcGIS ?

28/47

Scheerooren, 2016

Main design rule?

29/47

Visualisation issues

Miniukovich & De Angeli, 2014

Ellis & Dix, 2007

Visualisation issues

Miniukovich & De Angeli, 2014

Ellis & Dix, 2007 Holten & van Wijk, 2009

Usability | Methods & Tools

Some of the same methods are used in design and evaluation differently Different methods are often combined in one study

http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/methods.htm 32/47

Usability evaluation

?

?

Just bought a dog

A big one ?

No, not so big ...

Long hair?

No, short hair !

What colour?

White black spotted...

What a nice dog !

Isn’t it ?

33/47

Usability evaluation – how?

Approaches

Controlled settings involving users like Living labs

Natural settings involving users like Field studies

Controlled settings without users like Expert reviews

Methods and techniques

Quantitative or qualitative

Formative or summative

Users or experts (latter by eg. heuristic evaluation)

http://www.useit.com/jakob/

34/47

Evaluation approaches

Living Labs Field studies Expert reviews

Users do specific tasks do natural tasks not involved

Location controlled daily / natural

environment

laboratory

When prototype early use stage prototype

Data quantitative qualitative “qualitative”

Feedback measures &

errors

descriptions problem finding

Type applied naturalistic expert based

35/47

Evaluation methods

Method Living labs Field studies Expert reviews

Observing x x

Asking users x x

Asking experts x x

Testing x

Modeling x

http://www.groenmonitor.nl/groenindex

36/47

Pros and Cons

living lab

field study

expert review

37/47

Usability evaluation methods in detail

Usually lab experiments

Performance metrics

Issues based metrics

Self-report measures

Behavioural and physiological metrics

Tullis, Albert 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqD2pXqT0Z0

38/47

Trends | medium is the message

http://bit.ly/cSNvc1 / Rogers et al, 2011 (p 482 -487) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

What went wrong?

39/47

N2K Trends

o History and trends

o Data considerations

o Principles of Map Design

o Graphic presentation techniques

o Map production

o Map use and Evaluation

BoK, Geo-Information (2006, DiBiase)

http://www.gi-n2k.eu/ (2014-2016)

40/47

N2K | Visualisation next generation

KA |Cartography and Visualization

o History and trends

o Data considerations | global coverage (spatio-temporal resolution!),

3D, big data/data ensembles

o Principles of Map Design | seamless map+ zoom levels, temporal,

3D+LOD, animation, story telling / infographics

o Graphic presentation techniques | static to dynamic, web-map and -

scenes, virtual globes, virtual to augmented reality continuum

o Map production | paper to any device (any screen size to HoloLens),

interactive maps

o Map use and Evaluation | role of new technologies

http://www.gi-n2k.eu/

41/47

Usability influenced by trends

Increasing demand for 3D, “realistic” visualizations, animation | mixed reality

Driven by familiarity with latest technology

3D, realistic visualizations are aesthetically pleasing

benefits of realism

● minimize interpretive effort

● feels complete, accurate, easy (available instantly and constantly)

http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjMVsTFVX10

3D & animated http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/04/23/guide-to-3d-tech/

43/47

3D visualizations | depth cue or parallax trigger

If the data themselves are 3D, the third dimension communicates important information

3D useful for:

visualizing volumes, and sightlines (instead of making mental models by combining 2D visualizations)

communicating the concept place

navigating through areas

Realistic texturing, illumination:

may facilitate feeling of ‘presence’ in a location

may introduce affective appraisal of an area

http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/revelations/en-GB/home/

44/47

Preference for realism

• extraneous realism slowed response time and lead to more eye fixations on both task-relevant and task-irrelevant regions of the displays • some participants persisted in favoring these realistic displays over non-realistic maps.

Hegarty et al, 2011

45/47

Users prefer realistic, complex and high-fidelity displays, even when their performance is lower (extra information is not task relevant, and distracting)

Users have more confidence in data presented in realistic displays

Appreciation of the 3D visualization may transfer to the content of the data

User preferences, even those of domain experts, are not a good indication of effectiveness; testing required.

Attractive things work better

when we feel attracted, we overlook design faults

Smallman, St John 2005

46/47

Attractive things work better

when we feel attracted, we overlook design faults

Donald Norman (2002)

“.. any pleasure, derivable from the appearance or functioning of the tool increases positive affect, broadening the creativity and increasing the tolerance for minor difficulties and blockages.

The changes in processing style released by positive affect aid in creative problem solving that is apt to overcome both difficulties encountered in the activity and those created by the interface design.

“Tools that are meant to support serious, concentrated effort (…), are best served by designs that emphasize function and minimize irrelevancies. “

Here the normal tensions of the situation are beneficial. The design should not get in the way; it must be carefully tailored for the task.

47/47

Some conclusions……

Proper visualization techniques

using cartographic / geo-visualisation concepts

applying user centered design

by defining Personas and Requirements

and developing demonstrators / prototypes

including interaction design rules

reviewing demonstrators via usability evaluation

check unwanted side-effects ( eg. ‘affect’)

Geo-visualisation trends lead to next generation

applications that need usability evaluation to understand

impact on communication by geo-information.

48/47

170518| ron van lammeren | www.geo-informatie.nl

Based and inspired by Joske Houtkamp lectures, Rogers et al, projects of Peter Verweij; MGI/GIMA thesis studies (2000 – 2015) of

Bos, Hoogerwerf, Ottens, Davelaar, de Roo, Momot, Velema, Witte, Gaertner, Zhou, Luisman, Milosz, Getachew, Valster, van Rooij,

Gold, Link, Petrenko, van der Mijden, Smit, Scheerooren Text and pictures from DiWi, Foulkes, GESO, PSPE, QUICKS, VOLANTE projects

IDV |

Communication

and

Visualisation

http://www.tableau.com/about/blog/2012/11/top-5-visualizations-all-time-19810

Self-report measures

Ask users about their perception of the application and

their interaction with it

Semantic differential scales

Beautiful o o o o o o o Ugly

Likert scales

“The information was easy to find”

strong disagree / disagree / neither agree nor disagree / agree / strong agree

Open-ended questions

(Which 5 elements did you like the least/most? Reasons for assessments)

Standard questionnaires:

SUS (System usability scale),

QUIS (user interface satisfaction),

USE (Usefulness, Satisfaction and ease of Use)

Example screenshot study for GIS

Goals:

How do GIS users organise and customise the interface?

Study common users in daily usage

Users were asked: - to send a screenshot of their entire screen when working on routine tasks

- to fill in a Questionnaire to provide additional information

Analysis:

proportion of interface assigned to map-other parts of interface (e.g. toolbars)

User experience

Screen resolution

Result: simple technique to understand how GIS is used in situ

Haklay & Zafiri 2008