Charting EDA: Characterizing Interactive Visualization Use in Computational Notebooks with a Mixed-Methods Formalism
Authors:
Dylan Wootton,
Amy Rae Fox,
Evan Peck,
Arvind Satyanarayan
Abstract:
Interactive visualizations are powerful tools for Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), but how do they affect the observations analysts make about their data? We conducted a qualitative experiment with 13 professional data scientists analyzing two datasets with Jupyter notebooks, collecting a rich dataset of interaction traces and think-aloud utterances. By qualitatively coding participant utterances,…
▽ More
Interactive visualizations are powerful tools for Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), but how do they affect the observations analysts make about their data? We conducted a qualitative experiment with 13 professional data scientists analyzing two datasets with Jupyter notebooks, collecting a rich dataset of interaction traces and think-aloud utterances. By qualitatively coding participant utterances, we introduce a formalism that describes EDA as a sequence of analysis states, where each state is comprised of either a representation an analyst constructs (e.g., the output of a data frame, an interactive visualization, etc.) or an observation the analyst makes (e.g., about missing data, the relationship between variables, etc.). By applying our formalism to our dataset, we identify that interactive visualizations, on average, lead to earlier and more complex insights about relationships between dataset attributes compared to static visualizations. Moreover, by calculating metrics such as revisit count and representational diversity, we uncover that some representations serve more as "planning aids" during EDA rather than tools strictly for hypothesis-answering. We show how these measures help identify other patterns of analysis behavior, such as the "80-20 rule", where a small subset of representations drove the majority of observations. Based on these findings, we offer design guidelines for interactive exploratory analysis tooling and reflect on future directions for studying the role that visualizations play in EDA.
△ Less
Submitted 16 September, 2024;
originally announced September 2024.
Animated Vega-Lite: Unifying Animation with a Grammar of Interactive Graphics
Authors:
Jonathan Zong,
Josh Pollock,
Dylan Wootton,
Arvind Satyanarayan
Abstract:
We present Animated Vega-Lite, a set of extensions to Vega-Lite that model animated visualizations as time-varying data queries. In contrast to alternate approaches for specifying animated visualizations, which prize a highly expressive design space, Animated Vega-Lite prioritizes unifying animation with the language's existing abstractions for static and interactive visualizations to enable autho…
▽ More
We present Animated Vega-Lite, a set of extensions to Vega-Lite that model animated visualizations as time-varying data queries. In contrast to alternate approaches for specifying animated visualizations, which prize a highly expressive design space, Animated Vega-Lite prioritizes unifying animation with the language's existing abstractions for static and interactive visualizations to enable authors to smoothly move between or combine these modalities. Thus, to compose animation with static visualizations, we represent time as an encoding channel. Time encodings map a data field to animation keyframes, providing a lightweight specification for animations without interaction. To compose animation and interaction, we also represent time as an event stream; Vega-Lite selections, which provide dynamic data queries, are now driven not only by input events but by timer ticks as well. We evaluate the expressiveness of our approach through a gallery of diverse examples that demonstrate coverage over taxonomies of both interaction and animation. We also critically reflect on the conceptual affordances and limitations of our contribution by interviewing five expert developers of existing animation grammars. These reflections highlight the key motivating role of in-the-wild examples, and identify three central tradeoffs: the language design process, the types of animated transitions supported, and how the systems model keyframes.
△ Less
Submitted 12 August, 2022; v1 submitted 7 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
