Activity-Centered Domain Characterization Liz Marai Electronic - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Activity-Centered Domain Characterization

Liz Marai

Electronic Visualization Laboratory University of Illinois at Chicago

Domain characterization is difficult

[Statistical and Applied Math Sciences Institute] [van Wijk 2006] [Munzner 2009: A Nested Model]

Vis models use Human-Centered Design

Observation Ideation Prototyping Testing

• D. Norman, “The Design of Everyday Things” 2002

“Know your user”. You can’t design something for people without a deep, detailed knowledge of those people.

A few Vis HCD questions

Q1: Human-Centered Design and SwE

If writing functional specs is “like flossing” (everyone knows they should do it [Spolsky 2000]) , where are the functional specs in Human- Centered Design vis models?

Observation Ideation Prototyping Testing

What is the relative value of a Cure Alzheimer’s visual computing project with only two domain expert users?

Q2: Value of Vis

# users “Explore pet-names” project “Cure Alzheimer’s” project

If visualization design models build on the Humans-Data-Tasks triad, where do user workflows fit in?

Q3: Workflows

Humans Data Tasks

[shorpy.com: Efficiency Kitchen cca 1917]

“HCD has become such a dominant theme in design that it is now accepted by interface and application designers automatically, without thought, let alone criticism. That’s a dangerous state --- when things are treated as accepted wisdom.”

(D. Norman 2005, “Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful”)

“HCD Considered Harmful”

• ACD focuses on activities, not on the individual person (Activity

Theory)

• “...because people are quite willing to learn things that appear

to be essential to the activity, activity should be allowed to define the product and its structure” (D. Norman 2013, The Design of

Everyday Things Revised and Expanded)

• ACD is an enhancement of Human-Centered Design

Activity-Centered Design (ACD) paradigm

In a departure from existing vis models, this model:

• Assigns value to vis based on activities
• Ranks tasks > data
• Incorporates workflows
• Establishes the need for vis early
• Extends the nested model with functional specs
• Leads to a higher rate of project success

An ACD model for domain characterization

[Marai VIS’17 / TVCG Vol 24, Jan 2018 DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2744459]

• Allow the users to validate the designer’s understanding of the

domain problem

• A functional spec
• 1. Describes activity-features, not implementation
• given as scenarios
• 2. Describes also what the system will NOT do
• 3. Lists nonfunctional requirements
• Mandatorily reviewed and approved by users

Functional specs as workflows

• Templates considered harmful (Spolsky, “Joel on Software”, 2000)

NOT:

The user selects a biochemical model from the literature, and adds it as a new model entry with a single field “Model Name” into the visual analysis

• system. The system is web-based.

BUT:

Kermit the Frog, bored out of his mind, opens the latest issue of Nature Methods and spots a mouth-watering model of the fruit-fly response to

• allergens. Sticking his tongue out, Kermit runs to the browser, opens the

visualization system, and types a new model entry with a single field called “Fruit-fly model”.

Spolsky’s advice on functional specs

Does this ACD model matter?

• Karl Popper (1902-1994), philosopher of science
• “A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven,

although it can be falsified” (B. Gower, Scientific Method: An Historical and Philosophical

Introduction)

Evaluation

[https://i.redd.it/tlyoidfqe3gz.png] [http://wikipedia.org/]

• Set A: 40 concrete short-term projects using prior models
• generic agile model + nested model + pitfalls model [Sedlmair et al 2012]
• Set B: 35 similar projects using the ACD model
• same agile model + nested model + ACD model
• All completed by young researchers training in interdisciplinary

visualization

• Required collaboration with experts in orthopaedics, biology, turbulent

combustion, astronomy, machine translation,…

• Project success defined as novelty and user adoption [F. Brooks 1996]

Evaluation setup

• Set A: 25% success rate (10/40)
• success: 2 by dual expertise researcher, 8 by weekly meetings with committed

expert, 0 by non-weekly expert

• failed: several data issues and communication issues, some despite weekly

meetings with committed experts

• Set B: 63% success rate (22/35)
• success: 2 by dual expertise researcher, 10 by weekly meetings with committed

expert, 10 by non-weekly expert

• failed: 9 complete fails (improper Data Access, Func specs), 4 partial fails

(Probes); several had weekly meetings with committed experts

Evaluation: Supporting evidence

• Agreement and partial disagreement
• Nested model [Munzner 2009]: HCD

validation

• Pure HCD models

Evaluation: Fit with existing reports and models

X

• Agreement:
• All vis models that include a Task axis [Springmeyer et al 1992] [Tory & Moller 2004]

[Praetorius & Van Wijk 2009] …

• [Lloyd and Dykes 2011] !!
• [Sedlmair et al 2012], [McKenna et al 2014]

ACD model

Activity-centered frame and model for domain characterization that:

• Assigns value to vis based on activities
• Ranks tasks > data
• Incorporates explicitly workflows
• Establishes the need for vis early
• Extends the nested model with functional specs
• Leads to a higher rate of project success

Designing for activity may improve the openness of users to novel, powerful visual encodings and interaction paradigms. Limitations and assumptions: see paper

Food for thought

• There’s little in this model that makes it SciVis-restricted
• There’s more than one model/theory for almost everything
• does VIS pick one model and follow it for many years? (“human-centered-

design”, “data-tasks-user”, ”overview first”, “five sheet design”…)

• What counts as validation/evaluation of a model/theory?
• if it provides a new interpretation of existing data/reports, why is that not

enough?

Acknowledgments

• NSF CAREER IIS-1541277, CBET-1250171, DMS-1557559, CNS-1625941
• NIH R01 CA214825, R01 CA225190, R01 LM012527
• The Feinberg Foundation
• Collaborators and students
• Electronic Visualization Laboratory faculty, staff and students
• Anonymous reviewers, and T. Moller, A. Johnson, D. Laidlaw, T. Munzner

Food for thought

• There’s little in this model that makes it SciVis-restricted
• There’s more than one model/theory for almost everything
• does VIS pick one model and follow it for many years? (“human-centered-

design”, “data-tasks-user”, ”overview first”, “five sheet design”…)

• What counts as validation/evaluation of a model/theory?
• if it provides a new interpretation of existing data/reports, why is that not

enough?

Questions?

ACD model for domain characterization that:

• Assigns value to vis based on activities
• Ranks tasks > data
• Incorporates workflows
• Establishes the need for vis early
• Extends the nested model with functional specs
• Leads to a higher rate of project success

ACD Model

Activity