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.
翻译:互动使用户能够有效地浏览大量数据,支持认知处理,并增加数据表述方法。然而,几乎没有人试图从经验上证明在静态可视化中增加互动是否改善了其功能,超越了大众信仰。在本文中,我们缩小了这一差距。我们用典型的贝叶斯推理任务作为测试台,评估是否允许用户与静态可视化互动可以改善他们的推理。通过两项众源研究,我们显示,在静态贝叶斯推理中增加互动并不能提高参与者在巴伊西亚推理工作中的准确性。在某些情况下,它可以大大减损它。此外,我们证明,基于可视化设计调整性能,高低空间能力的人对不同的互动技术和基础可视化反应不同。我们的工作表明,互动并非像我们常常认为的那样明确无误;设计好的静态直观化可能比交互式的要有效。